He tosses out the baited hook. She, like some ravenous trigger[ed] fish, swallows it whole. Well done, sir, well done.
He tosses out the baited hook. She, like some ravenous trigger[ed] fish, swallows it whole. Well done, sir, well done.
The press is winning the culture wars. Even as more information emerges about Hillary’s criminality, her illness, her sharia-friendly aides, and her appalling record as Secretary of State, she’s still pulling ahead. Trump hasn’t done anything awful in the last few weeks because neither he nor Hillary shone in the debate. One therefore has to ask, why Hillary’s surge?
I have what I think is the one and only answer: The Media. The media deliberately built Trump up during the primaries to destroy more traditional candidates and they are destroying him now. I have never, never seen anything the like of which I’ve seen now. The steady drumbeat of hate directed at Trump is unprecedented in American history, as is the decision to abandon any pretense of reporting honestly about Hillary.
The problem is that even those who distrust the media are going to be affected. It’s kind of like the situation in an old cartoon that shows a man and a woman at the breakfast table, each reading the paper. She says to him, “It says here, ‘Don’t believe everything you read.'” His answer? “Don’t believe it.” For the average person, it’s impossible to know what to read and what to believe. But they still read and, whether or not they believe, they subliminally absorb the “Hate Trump, Trump is Evil, Trump is Dangerous” rhetoric.
For that reason, I think the Prager U video on the media is too temperate, but it’s still interesting:
Got this one from a relative. Made me laugh.
A young Texan grew up wanting to be a lawman. He grew up big, 6′ 2″, strong as a longhorn, and fast as a mustang. He could shoot a bottle cap tossed in the air at 40 paces.
When he finally came of age, he applied to where he had only dreamed of working: the West Texas Sheriff’s Department.
After a series of tests and interviews, the Chief Deputy finally called him into his office for the young man’s last interview.
The Chief Deputy said, “You’re a big strong kid and you can really shoot. So far your qualifications all look good, but we have, what you might call, an “Attitude Suitability Test”, that you must take before you can be accepted.
We don’t let just anyone carry our badge, son.”
Then, sliding a service pistol and a box of ammo across the desk, the Chief said, “Take this pistol and go out and shoot:
six illegal aliens,
six meth dealers,
six Muslim extremists,
and a rabbit.”
“Why the rabbit?” queried the applicant.
“You pass,” said the Chief Deputy.”When can you start?”
[2018: I’ve updated this post from 2013 to change a word to “pron,” where it appears, including in “pornographic.” I’ve also cleaned up, or intentionally misspelled (e.g., “nekkid”), other language to which Google AdSense might object. Apologies for the apparent misspellings. If this were a recent post, I might have taken a stand, but this is a low-traffic post from years ago that I doubt anyone will ever look at again.]
I overheard two women talking the other day. One told the other that her teenage son was looking at internet pron. Worse, her husband wouldn’t help her stop this behavior because, as he said, “I used to read Playboy when I was his age, and it didn’t hurt me.” Is it really possible for the father of a teenage boy to be that clueless? This daddy’s ignorance about internet pron is so great that it may prove that reading Playboy when he was a teen did hurt him.
Playboy nekkid ladies were wholesome. I know this sounds like an oxymoron, but the Playmates were like the girl next door, except without clothes. For at least the first twenty or more years of Playboy‘s history, these gals were an every man (or boy) fantasy brought to life. The teens and young men perusing the pages could easily pretend that Miss January was that cute brunette down the street, or that Miss July was the hot girl you admired on the other side of the classroom.
Eventually, though, the pleasure centers in male consumers’ brains stopped getting a thrill from “mere” nekkid ladies. They started gravitating in greater numbers to magazines such as Penthouse or Hustler that showed women who were not only undressed, but were also engaging in sexual acts.
With the advent of the internet, though, the old-line magazines, both hard and soft core, couldn’t keep up with the gravitational pull of the internet. And in the internet world, where pron is king, purveyors had to keep one-upping each other if they wanted to keep traffic coming to their sites. Changes to content, instead of happening in human years, over the course of decades, happened in fruit fly years, over the course of weeks or even days. If I’m a pron site mogul, I show nekkid ladies, but lose traffic to the guy who shows nekkid ladies playing with themselves, so I up the ante by showing two nekkid ladies playing with each other, so he ups the ante by adding two men and, perhaps, a dog or two. And so it goes, with each competitive iteration getting more perverse in a never-ending effort to catch the attention of an increasingly jaded viewing public.
Eventually, you end up with scenes such as this one, which I’ve censored appropriately to remove any and all pronographic or distasteful images: [Read more…]
I appreciate Adam Carolla’s willingness to defy PC shibboleths. I respect his intelligence. I do not, however, find him funny. Nor do I find Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, or Stephen Colbert funny. I like Tina Fey when she’s not foolish enough to wander into political territory. I loved Seinfeld, which was a joint Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld production. I hate Curb Your Enthusiasm, which is solely a Larry David production.
I laugh just thinking about the I Love Lucy episode in which Lucy meets William Holden (one of the last great gentleman of the Silver Screen). As you may recall, Lucy, newly arrived in Hollywood, drags Fred and Ethel off to the Brown Derby to see the stars. She finds herself seated next to Bill Holden, and begins to stare at him. Holden, tired of being stared at by every tourist in town, turns the tables and stares right back at Lucy. Part I of the episode ends with Lucy fleeing the Brown Derby, having embarrassed herself horribly (and amusingly, of course). Part II opens with Ricky bringing Holden back to the hotel room to meet Lucy. Lucy doesn’t want to meet Holden. Hilarity ensues:
I think that episode is probably one of the funniest comedic moments ever captured on film. In a peculiar way, part of the fun is that Lucy, the perfect comedienne, had no sense of humor. She could sell a joke; she just couldn’t make one.
Marx Brothers? Side splitting. Three Stooges? Not so much.
Are my comic tastes typical for a woman? I don’t know. I like to laugh. Significantly, I don’t appreciate crude humor. One of the reasons Jon Stewart doesn’t endear himself to me, aside from his lopsided political views, is the fact that he’s incredibly crude. I also don’t find meanness funny, which is why I enjoy the puckish Jay Leno and actively dislike the vicious David Letterman.
This rumination has a point. Adam Carolla does not believe women are funny:
Q. The lesson you learned from a sexual harassment seminar was “Don’t hire chicks.” Do you hate working with women?
A. No. But they make you hire a certain number of chicks, and they’re always the least funny on the writing staff. The reason why you know more funny dudes than funny chicks is that dudes are funnier than chicks. If my daughter has a mediocre sense of humor, I’m just gonna tell her, “Be a staff writer for a sitcom. Because they’ll have to hire you, they can’t really fire you, and you don’t have to produce that much. It’ll be awesome.
At Ricochet, Chazzy Star asks readers to chime in, pro or con, regarding Carolla’s opinion. I think Carolla has a point, sort of. There are two things at work here. First, women are less likely to do crude, vulgar humor. There are some exceptions, such as Lisa Lampanelli, who make crudity a centerpiece of their act, but I find her offensive rather than funny. Moreover, I doubt that I’m the only woman who feels this way. Because women shy away from crudities, they have a smaller comedic repertoire on which to draw. A lot of them also end up doing domestic or relationship humor, which can also be limiting.
That limitation leads me to my second point, which is that I think men are less likely to appreciate women’s humor than women are to appreciate men’s humor. While neither men nor women appreciate a vulgar woman, both will accept and laugh at a vulgar man. Likewise, while women may appreciate domestic or relationship humor, men are likely to consider that “chick” stuff, and to disengage. So not only do men have a larger repertoire, they also have a larger potential audience, one made up of men, who like manly jokes, and women, who also like manly jokes.
I don’t want to lock people into boxes, of course. Although it’s not apparent from my writing, which goes for snark and sarcasm, rather than humor (I just can’t write “funny”), I’m actually quite amusing in conversation. Several people have told me I ought to do stand-up, a thought that makes me feel faint. Stage-fright and I are old and good friends. In any event, mine is a reactive humor. I need to have someone say something that triggers the loopy drive in my brain, and then funny stuff starts coming out.
Do you agree with Carolla that men are inherently better than women at humor? Do you think I’m on to something when I suggest that women are more constrained in the humor they’ll create, and less constrained in the humor they’ll appreciate? And have you got any good jokes that are neither crude nor otherwise offensive? I do love to laugh.
There’s just something awesome…a je ne sais quoi..about Israeli humor in the face of adversity.
For all you Dylan fans….
I got the funniest email today, and I just had to share it with you. The “re” line was as follows: “Gibbering baboons more sensible than you, wingnut degenerate.” I was intrigued. The rest of the email consisted of a link to a post, along with the full text of the post in which the author explained precisely why I don’t even rank up there with gibbering baboons and, worse, I’m a “wingnut degenerate.”
I debated whether to share the link with you guys, ’cause I think the author is just trying to generate traffic. However, because both the email title and the blog post had me laughing hysterically, I think the post author deserves some recognition. Go here and check it out. Then, come back to me and tell me if you can understand the author’s thesis.
I’ve read the darn post three times now and I still can’t figure out what the point is. I know I’m a lower mammalian life form and a degenerate but, for the life of me, I don’t understand what I did to earn those interesting sobriquets. I mean, it’s clear that I shouldn’t have said what I said, but the post author never seems to bring himself to explaining why I shouldn’t have said those things. He sneers, but he never manages to rise to the level of thesis, fact and argument. His post is the written equivalent of this — it definitely makes a statement, but one that reflects solely on the person making the statement, not the person at the receiving end.
Thoughts during a busy day:
Idle thought 1: I want to have Mewt Gingney for my candidate. Newt Gingrich is a completely principled conservative with, in his past at least, an unprincipled private life. Mitt Romney is an unprincipled conservative with, from the past to the present, what appears to be a completely principled private life. Separately, each is an imperfect candidate. Combined into one super Republican . . . well, wow! If I have to pick one, though, I’d go for Newt, since I’m voting for president, not husband.
Idle thought 2: My mother is not well, and I was at her bedside entertaining her. In keeping with my belief that laughter is the best medicine, I read to her two of my favorite funny posts (here and here), both of which happen to be written by military types. It occurred to me that, while many in our military have extremely well-developed senses of humor, the same cannot be said for the Occupy crowd. Have any of them said anything funny? (Intentionally funny, I mean, not insanely stupid that makes one feel as guilty as if one laughed at a mentally disabled person for an inadvertent joke.)
Idle thought 3: People often try to figure out what it is about the West that made it zoom ahead of all other cultures. I’d like to suggest a trigger for the economic and intellectual explosion: banking. Being able to transport money easily and, even more importantly, being able to rent it, unleashed enormous creative, exploratory and commercial energy. It’s rather striking, isn’t it, that the Occupy movement is directed at destroying banks. In other words, the attack really isn’t against just banks. The attack is at the core of Western intellectual energy and civilization.
I’ll be the first to admit that banks are royal pains in the butt (I’m still sweating from the effort I had to make to assemble the 200 pages of documents I needed to apply for a re-fi), but I’m more inclined to blame controlling Democrat legislation for this insanity than the banks themselves. Banks should be policed for fraud and corruption, but otherwise, they — and we — function best in an open market.
Idle thought 4: I wasn’t in a rush to judgment regarding the Cain sexual harassment allegations, since such claims were a dime a dozen in the 1990s. As the story develops, though, two thoughts occur: if he did it, better we know now than later; and regardless of whether or not he did it, his and his team’s response to the story is appalling, which should concern us regarding his readiness for any upcoming fight directly against Obama. I like Cain, personally, but I have strong doubts about whether he’s ready for prime time. I’d rather see his flame burn out now than in October 2012.
Anything you guys would like to add to my list of idle thoughts?
The Progressives are characterized by solemnity and pomposity. They take themselves very, very seriously. Barbara Boxer personified this obsession with self-worth when she chastised a general for respectfully addressing her as “Ma’am” instead of “Senator.” I really wonder if she thought people were impressed by her thin skin and self-aggrandizement. As the Anchoress says, though, we need to laugh at them, constantly. Start here for a good laugh and, once you’re done, press “more” and laugh harder.
I’m not sure it will matter in the polls in November, but the GOP is showing a certain charm and humor this February. You can send GOP Valentine e-cards to your loved ones (or just good friends) this Valentine’s Day.
I’m trying to decide between the Pelosi/Reid card (“We crafted this Valentine’s card behind closed doors”) and the Rahm card (“Happy [explective] Valentine’s Day”). Check it out.
Got a brilliant email today:
One day a florist went to a barber for a haircut. After the cut, he asked about his bill, and the barber replied, ‘I cannot accept money from you, I’m doing community service this week.’ The florist was pleased and left the shop.
When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a ‘thank you’ card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.
Later, a cop comes in for a haircut, and when he tries to pay his bill, the barber again replied, ‘I cannot accept money from you , I’m doing community service this week.’ The cop was happy and left the shop.
The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a ‘thank you’ card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.
Then a Congressman came in for a haircut, and when he went to pay his bill, the barber again replied, ‘I can not accept money from you. I’m doing community service this week.’ The Congressman was very happy and left the shop.
The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were a dozen Congressmen lined up waiting for a free haircut.
And that, my friends, illustrates the fundamental difference between the citizens of our country and the politicians who run it.
It’s only because it’s just a wee bit more over the top than the real things that you can tell it’s satire:
Big hat tip to The New Editor
UPDATE: The above video represents fake Democrats (read: “Republican satirists”) in action. Nothing, of course, can compare to the real deal, who are so over-the-top that Scott Brown has been forced to file criminal charges against them (presumably for election fraud).
UPDATE II: And in the media, real Democrats actively encourage voter fraud.
Obama’s media attack dog, Anita Dunn, was caught saying that Chairman Mao is one of her two favorite political philosophers, with Mother Teresa occupying the other spot:
Dunn is now claiming, in effect, that, “Hey, I was only joking to make a rhetorical point.”
A joke, huh? Well, if that’s Dunn’s idea of a joke, I’ve written her an act that will knock ’em dead at the comedy clubs:
Hey, everybody. It’s great to be here in the Mao Tse Tung Capitalist Recidivist Re-Education Camp. [Tongue flicker.] I love performing here, ’cause there are always some new faces in the crowd. And by the way, you guys, the ones who have been here for a while — you know who you are! — your diets are working great! [Tongue flicker.] Okay, is everybody ready go have a good time?! If you are, stand up with me and cheer. Oh, wait. You’re chained to your seats? Never mind. Just rattle your chains. We all know you’re excited. [Tongue flicker.]
So, I was walking down the street in Beijing the other day, and this capitalist reactionary mongrel came crawling up to me with two Revolutionary Guards behind him, and he said, “Help, they’re going to kill me.” [Manic giggle.] Wait, wait, the joke’s coming. I just gotta stop laughing myself here. Okay, okay. [Tongue flicker] So I looked at this bourgeois excuse for a human being and then, right next to me, I saw on the wall this saying from Chairman Mao: “We must thoroughly clear away all ideas among our cadres of winning easy victories through good luck, without hard and bitter struggle, without sweat and blood.” [Tongue flicker.] And just as I was about to read it to him, one of the Guards shot him! Yeah. That’s really what happened. Is that great or what? Can I have a rim shot here? [Tongue flicker.]
[Silence in the room]
Wow. You are a tough crowd here tonight in the re-education camp. [Tongue flicker.] Maybe I can have some of the guards tickle you a little bit with their bayonets. Huh? Huh? That should make you laugh. [Tongue flicker.]
[Strained laughter filters through room.]
You guys are so easy. At the last re-education camp I performed, it took three guard tickles and ten dead bodies to get the laughter going. [Tongue flicker.] You so prove the truth of Mao’s saying that “We are confronted by two types of social contradictions – those between ourselves and the enemy and those among the people themselves. The two are totally different in their nature.” [Tongue flicker.]
Oh, wait! [Tongue flicker.] I see that my time here is up. I’m hoping a transport plane to Pyongyang, to do a gig at the Kim Jong Il Capitalist Recidivist Re-Education Camp. [Tongue flicker.] I hope that they’re as good a crowd as you guys have been. [Manic giggle.] So until I’m back, you just keep reading your Little Red Books.
UPDATE: At Newsreal, David Horowitz weighs in, explaining why it matters thata White House Communications Director looks to Mao Tse Tung for her political philosophy:
Mao is the greatest mass murderer in human history. Jon Halliday and his wife who have written the definitive biography of Mao estimated that he killed 70 million people.
In the Sixties only the Progressive Labor Party, a minority sect derided by everybody else was Maoist. Dunn’s comment is a reflection of the continuing intellectual degradation of the left. There are plenty of Maoists teaching in universities however. The radical caucus of the Modern Language Association (professors of literature) is run by Maoist Barbara Foley.
My point exactly, and I’m going to wrap up here by quoting from language I used in a post explaining why it’s no excuse for Kevin Jennings (the “Safe Schools Czar”) that NAMBLA involvement is only a part of the Harry Hays gay rights mythology. That post, incidentally, pre-dated the report about Dunn’s admiration for “Mao, the Philosopher.”
There comes a point when someone’s reprehensible side is so extreme that simple decency means that you can no longer hold that person up as an example because of his less reprehensible side. To take extreme examples to make the point, we don’t use Hitler as a poster child for vegetarianism, Mao as a model for physical fitness through swimming, or Ted Bundy to make the point that clean-cut guys can get the girls. Because reputation matters, when a person’s evil outweighs his good, we toss him from the role model pedestal.