Trans Tranny Trany Trannie Traney Tranie

 "...these be her very C's, her U's, 'n' her T's, and thus makes she her great P's."

                                                      --Twelfth Night, Act 2, scene 5        .

[Trigger Warning: for the triggerable, andor for those with old-fashioned andor 

obsolete sensibilities who wish not to see disturbing andor vulgar images.]

It's just impossible to make up my mind.  But spelling is about mere incidentals, like whether or not you dot an 'i', or a 'j'.  J is one of those questionable letters, not useless, like male nipples (except I'm given to understand that some men enjoy their nipples (I have found them utterly ignorable, except when very slightly irritating)) -- redundant, rather, like 'x' or 'q', or even 'c'.  

'W' is useful; how could one reasonably get that sound, otherwise? Oouman.  Oouhmuhn, Ooihmehn.  You can get the idea, but it doesn't really work.  And when it's 'w' 'h', where what why, but not who -- that blowing doubleyou sound.  The dialect of American English I was brought up in ... in which I was brought up ... up in which I was brought -- it didn't acknowledge this particular phoneme.  Not that it's difficult to produce, like that Arabic 'D' that we can't even hear, or the Japanese sound between 'r' and 'l' that makes them confuse our 'r' and 'l'.  But, really, there's the vexing and intractable question, what is a doubleyou?  Even the Supreme Court doesn't know.  Doubleyou is so binary.

You just have to understand that some folks expect words to be pronounced the way they like it.  Like 'often' -- there's no 't' sound, except if that's how you were raised.  It's a back-formation, from 'oft'.  It's how you deduce extinct words from the root and grammatical forms.  Listen fasten wastrel scalpel castle whistle wrestle.  Dullard, drunkard, coward, bastard. 

And this nipple thing -- I understand it, embryologically. Women, after all, have an analogue, a homologue of the prostate.  Whale pelvises are used during the birthing process.  These things have reasons.  I seem to recall that humans have the capacity for, say, eight nipples, two rows of four.  This explains the supernumerary expression that sometimes occurs.  My son had a third nipple.  It never grew.  I was almost proud of it, but I think he probably got tired of my mentioning it, when he got a bit older.  So I stopped.  I am capable of learning.  

If I use the search capacity of my smartphone it volunteers  a list of suggestions.  Completely irrelevant and random.  I suppose they're 'trending', as the kids say.  Elliot Page was showing his first shirtless picture. My mind boggled.  Who is Elliot Page, and why would this be of interest?  Is he beautiful and mysterious?  Well, no.

Low bodyfat, nice enough abs if you like that sort of thing, but an example of failed puberty, youngish but not aging well -- a wizened pixie. Wizard.  He managed to achieve armpit hair -- bucking the manscaping trend, rather daringly I should think.  Transgressive.  Except, looking as he does as of northerly European extraction, he should have at least some chest hair. So he is untrue to his most authentic hairitage.  

What is it with these last 20 years.  Men actually shave their pubic hair.  And women too.  You realize what this is, right?  Body hair is a tertiary sexual characteristic, indicating adulthood.  No such hair means hands off.  It is unattractive to the point of being grotesque -- not in even an aesthetic sense, but biologically.  It's a gateway behavior, into a perversion that is common historically and culturally -- just not in our history or culture.  

But these things are relative.  Who's to say what an age of consent is.  Yes after all means yes.  Two year olds like to say NO, but, well, I don't know how to finish this sentence.  Ancient Egyptian royalty married their siblings, Mohammad married a nine-year-old, PBUH.  The flow of actual human behavior is against us, and who can fight the tide?  

American men marry American men.  No, I'm sorry, I made a grave error.  American men marry american men.  There is no America -- those capitalized 'Americas' I just used, they are purely orthographical, upper case because that's how sentences start, unless that too is a custom to be phased out, by enlightened practice and the Supreme Court.   There is no 'America' -- just a geographical expression, like the holy roman empire, or Metternich's italy.

 

And I'm doubly wrong, at least -- there are no american "men".  Because there are no men.  I just learned this, just now, when I looked a bit further into Elliot Page.  He is a man, per assertion and common report.  But some few months ago he was a woman -- I should say, he "presented" as a woman, the way a female dog presents her posterior when in heat -- 'mount me'.  Presuming of course the case is different with dogs, than with humans.  Dogs have male and female, as far as the Supreme Court currently allows us to suppose.  And it goes without saying, we are told, our understanding re the existence of "marriage" was fatally flawed.  Exploded myths: america, manhood, marriage.

Ellen Page, then.  A talented former actress, now actor -- actress actrex actranz. Such obsolete terms, like Jewess or Negress.  My grandfather said 'coons' -- it's just how Montanans born in the 1800s spoke.  People should get reasonable courtesy about what they call themselves. But they do not have the right to eliminate capital letters at the start of proper nouns.  They don't have the right to require that someone else dot an 'i' with a pretty little heart.  When very small children are potty trained, they enjoy the power of holding back, or producing.  It's something to outgrow. 

She spent all those post-puberty years (that explains it: it was a female puberty) hating her breasts. My desultory search did not uncover any info regarding her pubic area -- it's all about the "top surgery" -- radical bilateral mastectomy.  Nothing about "bottom surgery" -- vagina, labia, clitoris.  A lesbian, she will have had no affinity for penises -- yet presumably a fascination, and (in a rare instance where Freud would be correct) envy.  

But the info is incomplete.  Like Caitlyn Jenner (we all have a right to change our names) -- does he still have his junk?  Unknown to all but a few.  This must be the difference between these neologisms, "transgender" and "transsexual" -- the -sexual, I'm supposing, would try to more convincingly effect the illusion, of metamorphosing, of, um, transmogrifying thheir sex.

I should have thought Eliot truly committed herself -- removing not just the "dangerous", deadly and disgusting breast tissue the very thought of which so tormented her.  I had thought she'd had a little penis constructed out of maybe tendons or cartilage, and thigh skin, and perhaps they repurposed her clitoris.  Gristle.  Hanging or flopping or bobbing about inside those "swimming trunks" she's wearing for the first time.  Maybe it was a big penis -- is that a choice?  Can they transplant some dead man's penis -- the "organ donor" box benevolently ticked on his drivers license?  But they don't always go more than skin deep.  Like that pregnant man from a few decades ago.  Another exploded myth: motherhood.

I have to admit, I'm curious.  Bi-curious, is that the term?  No, the internet informs me.  It must be trans-curious.  Is that a thing?  Everything is a thing.  LGBTTQQIAAP-curious (I looked it up -- Legbutt Kyap.  I am Yippee Kiyay Yellow Curious.  Why does thheir Q come before my A?  That's discrimination.).  

I have below-zero interest in a prurient or titillated way, in transsexual penises.  But that's not clear: no interest in the removed or repurposed actual penises of body-dysphoric men who have themselves castrated and mutilated to counterfeit the appearance, sometimes extremely convincing, of actual women.  And no interest in a neopenis, or the penis-like construct that is assembled for the type or direction of transsexualism that moves from dysmorphic female to plausibly presented "male".  

(I've found some images of the surgical artifact in question.  

From Wikipedia

Alien, and very sad.  That second one seems misproportioned, although I've never been good at that sort of trigonometry.  But, not plausible at all.  A baby's arm not holding an apple.  Flesh-tones are off.  Looks plastic, or like a koteka, the tribal penis sheath that preserves Amazonian modesty.  An inexperienced lesbian might be fooled, as from Renaissance art, or the bas reliefs of Khajuraho.)  

I hope that's clear: no interest in either women with a constructed penis-like anatomical modification, or in the amputated organs of men who opt for this elective surgery.  Rather, my interest is like that in a medical picture of a prolapsed anus -- this can happen.  My curiosity is operational ... maybe that's not the best word -- but, might the doctors provide one of these "penises" with a foreskin, or alternatively with a circumcision scar?  Can it achieve an actual nitric oxide-induced erection?  Does viagra work on it?  (Seeing those images, the non-functionality is clear.)  Would it retract, as when it's cold -- would the "scrotum"? -- would the "testicles" retract in a fear-response?  I'd assume they put two little surgical-grade rubber ovoids in a little manufactured sac, as they do with castrated German shepherds.  So many open queries, for the questing mind.

Sup, I'm Chaz.  I used to be a cute little girl,

but I hated that.  So now I'm a man. 

I got my insurance to pay surgeons to make some junk for me, and now I have this tube of skin between my legs, like a thumb with no bone in it, and sort of behind it there's this hairless skin sac that used to be my vulva or whatever, with two silicone balls I call my balls.  They're huge.  They're held in place with mesh so they haven't caused a fistula yet, and you could hardly tell the difference, if you were a dude, but I wouldn't let you, cuz I don't let dudes near my balls.  I'm straight, see, and I dig chicks. And chicks dig me, at least the ones I git with, who don't really know what balls are like -- I mean the balls of other dudes.  

It's not hatred.  Befuddlement to a degree.  But it's disgust not with her, them, thhem, but with a depraved society that so utterly encourages a mutilation that briefly ameliorates the catastrophic mental illness of gender dysphoria or sexual dysmorphia.  There are cases where it's not about genitals, but, say, an arm.  The tranz solution would be to amputate the arm at the shoulder.  For all that it cuts as deep as can be, it's such a superficial response.  But lobotomies are still practiced -- I'm guessing mostly in, say, North Korea. 

With or without a dot, it's a 'j'.

Elliot is pro-abortion ... I think that's their locution -- oh, poor-choice. No, a typo, pro-chaz, d'oh, chew, well that was spellcheck ... but I clearly have a glitch in my brain about this. What's the matter with me.  She loves abortion is my point.  No, dang, HE loves abortion.  Well, I've lost my train of thought.  Why was I talking about abortion?  Something about uteruses, maybe.  Yes, that's it.  

She thinks that scalpels are the solution to unwanted organs and organisms, and feelings.

J

RG

Why is it always Hitler? Stalin was worse. So was Mao. But those are just the big names. I thought of Idi Amin, whom you probably don't even remember.

Maybe from SNL sketches.

He did love the medals, that Idi. I think I see a Vlasics Pickles jarlid over on his mid lower chest area. No, lower. Lower. At the bottom. We'll call it chest. Perhaps half a million killed. Hard to keep track. He died in 2003, in Jeddah. He was demented even back when he was in power, but he died utterly insane, from syphilitic degeneration.

There's Che. What, you thought he was heroic?

You shouldn't let your political opinions be formed by teeshirts. This is how I like to remember him:

But Che doesn't really rank up there with the big monsters. Not enough power. Sufficient evil, but not enough time.

The one I latched onto though was Pol Pot, whose face you wouldn't even recognize.


Not a bad looking man. An air of confidence will do that. You didn't know the face, but you'd heard the name. And you loved the movie. The Killing Fields. Pol Pot was the author, or rather the inspiration.

Allow me to introduce you to some of the denizens, if that's the right word ... no, it isn't. But here are some of the people whose bones cluttered those fields.

Look again. Look close. Closer. Make eye-contact. Linger.

I apologize for the poor quality of the pictures. They're from the '70s, but the circumstances must have been a tad constrained. All of these children were tortured to death.

What a world.


J

Whiteface

 Blackface is of course utterly outré.  And there's just no need for it.  Plenty of talented africans to fill appropriate roles.  And what is an appropriate role?  Any non-specific role -- you know, for a human being.  Also a specifically african role, like Harriet Tubman or MLK jr.  But what about Brownface, or Yellowface, or Whiteface?  I just don't see the need for a hispanic to play a  hispanic role.

Is that insensitive and racist of me?  Well, I have a right to be racist and insensitive. That's what freedom is -- the right -- not the necessity -- to be offensive.  Civility and good-breeding should daub up the cracks, and tolerance -- actual tolerance, for what is obnoxious -- will cover the rest.  It is pathetic that we need to remind them of this -- the opposite of freedom is coercion.

But to return to the matter.  I think it's racist to require that actors play only their own race. Pace the Huntington Post, with its blindside racism. Thus, the Globe Theatre's casting of a black youngster as  Romeo.  He's just too earnest and breathy and smiling to be pleasing, and the ahistoricity of it is jarring to me -- call me a bigot -- but to our modern sensibilities there's nothing necessary in Romeo's being white.  Same sort of casting in the most recent film of As You Like It.  And there's a Midsummer Night's Dream  with an african female.  We just have to redefine the meaning, when she is called "fair".  Fair enough.  Off hand  I don't recall any BBC attempt to cast an asian in a comparable speaking part.  Odd.

Point is, any nose-shape, any length of hair, any mere detail of physicality need have no impact on the role.  So, a dwarf as One of the  Gentlemen of Verona?  Nowadays there are some excellent little person actors.  No need to cast  them as weird dream visions, or as comedy props.  Once you're not an adolescent any more, the old funnyman references to midgets just isn't funny, man.  They're depending on the condition itself to be the joke.  Lazy hack stuff.  Like old-time radio with its dialect humor.  Italian and Irish and Jewish -- it was a SCREAM.  Deadly unfunny, to us.  Tastes change.  The essence of humor is surprise -- witness the hilarity to an infant of  peekaboo -- and the surprise of such differences as dialect has worn off.  Thank heaven.

And hispanic is such a mixed bag, that just about anyone could play it.  I'm about the only exception -- tall lanky blue-eyed blond.  Africans can play hispanic.  Asians can play hispanic.  Europeans can play hispanics.

And given the wide phenotype of american blacks, do we really truly need only ethnically african american actors to play such roles?  Well, as an affirmative action thing, sure, maybe.  It's not like there have been that many non-musician/criminal roles open to blacks.  Fortunately the audacity of hope has changed that forever.

But I do have two issues.  First, asians.  In olden days, honestly, when an asian actor was cast in a movie or early tv, it was more because they were asian, than because they were good actors.  You do know what I mean, hurt though your sensitivities may be.  Same with giants -- Richard Kiel was okay, but no great shakes as an actor.  Same  with little people -- they got the role because they fit the part physically.  Michael Dunn, as an obvious exception.  Sociological reasons for all of this -- lack of encouragement to even find out if you were a good actor, if a minority. Toshio Mori's "Japanese Hamlet" touches on this theme.

I suppose that's mostly in the past, now, although these Hollywood lefties are as racist as any clansman.  Good roles, you know, go to our  people.  Crossburning, or speech codes ... means of control.  (I know, I'm evil for saying it.  I should be stopped.  Opinioncrime (henceforth, opcrim) will not be tolerated.)

Of course, no one could have been less talented than Micky Rooney as Mr. whoever in Breakfast at Tiffany's. Any asian off the street who could find his mark and remember lines would have been as good, or as bad. You'd have thought someone in the studio would have seen that. But they still had blackface in the 50s, so, uh, there. Peter Lorre  could, uh, pass, as Mr. Moto.   But  Boris Karloff and Christopher Lee ... and Glen  Gordon -- as Fu Manchu? Ah, so.   It's a great character.  Unnecessary casting, though. Warner Oland?  He was a freakin swede.  John Wayne as Genghis Khan -- famously awesome.  Nuff said.

But my real question is really an answer to the PC lefty racists.  How have europeans been portrayed, in asian productions?  Well, originally, at first contact, we have this:

Slightly demonic.

It was hard to get the eyes right:

And the nose was a problem:

But it started to come together:

Hey, foxy lady -- come here often?

And by the time Commodore Perry hove to, we get the idea pretty well:

Recognizable.

But that was then and this is now.  I went online to see if there were any scholarly or journalistic studies of how europeans have fared in the past hundred years or so.  Crickets.  Something must exist, but not in the first few pages of google -- and how could anybody be expected to look further than that?  Be sensible.  Get a grip.

My deep expectation is that we -- and by we I mean normal people ... you know, tall lanky blue-eyed blonds -- have been portrayed by ethic asians, in asia.  Mostly.  I have only one bit of evidence for my intractably-firm opinion.  Something I saw a few years ago, to my delight.

Look familiar?

I will never be convinced but that this is meant to represent my people.  A few more inches in the nose, please.  Just think about pulling taffy, and you'll get it right.  Haw haw haw.

So the next time some lefty hack racemonger complains about, well, what else, it will be easy and useless to suggest that, yes, true, america sucks, but so does everywhere else.


J

Procrustean Healthcare

Myths endure because they tap into universal truths of the human psyche. Thus, Procrustes, Attic bandit who availed wayfarers of his iron bed. Unwelcomed hospitality, since he insisted that they fit the bed -- ensuring so by rack-stretching them were they too short, and amputating excess height if too tall. It would be the exemplar of one-size-fits-all, except Procrustes had two beds -- assuring himself of the need for alterations. Ensuring, assuring -- but let's not be coy. Insuring.

Mr Peabody reminds us that Wayback in 2009, Mark Styne noted that we are to have nationalized healthcare "because of the however many millions of uninsured, yet this bill will leave about 25 million Americans uninsured. On the other hand, millions of young, healthy Americans ... will be forced to pay for coverage they neither want nor need. On the other other hand, those Americans who have done the boring, responsible, grown-up thing and have health plans Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid determines to be excessively 'generous' will be subject to punitive taxes up to 40 percent."

Again we find insight in the tales of the past. Not too hot, not too cold -- tepid, which is juuuuuust riiiiiight. Montaigne in an essay tells of the eastern potentate who brought his courtiers to a field of poppies, where he commenced with a stick to lop off the heads of those flowers that stood higher than the rest. None were to excel, in his kingdom.

I don't have health insurance.  It's a protest, civil disobedience.  I'd rather die.  I've not given it a lot of thought, or any, but it occurs to me now that I'll end up in prison.  Whatever my January Six crime might be.  Being where I am, with the opinions I have.  It olden days the easy cynical high school motto was Consume, Be Silent, and Die.  Only the "consume" part has changed.  Be consumed, by the Moloch of the System.  Feed the furnace, the magical furnace that will save us from Global Climate Warming Weirding Change.

The Left adheres generally to the creation myth of Evolutionism. Fine. Far be it from your humble servant to mock or denigrate or find in any way wanting, the dominant faith of countless religionists. I'm all for islamism, if not Wokism.  It's almost my own religion.  Fanatical death cults bear quite some similarity to Christianity after all, except that Christ is about life, abundantly, and it's more about coming together to reason, rather than that fanatical thing.  And that terrorism thing, and the worshiping Satan.  

Wokism has its own terrorism, light, of Cancelling. But I exaggerate, caught up in the words.  Excuse me. Not terror.  Bullyism.  

But is it rude of me to notice that the highest sacrament of Evolutionism is Natural Selection? They want to preserve the weak, however, because that's how they guarantee the required non-excellence. "They" -- the Left, hard Left, and now this new thing under the sun, the Wokans, or under the moon, Protean yet eternal, aside from its creation, spontaneously generated out of Free Will, and its end, when the heavens roll up like a scroll, or when the sheep are separated from the goats, or what ever our eschatology reveals itself to be.    

So my understanding of their theology was flawed, when I misidentified just now their highest sacrament. My bad.  It's Unnatural Selection.  The herd is becoming just the way they want it, almost -- perhaps a tad too robust still -- correctable in a few more generations by maintaining the breeding viability of the mud-skimmers of the gene pool. Survival of the fitting-in-est.

But, perhaps in the face of such inconsistency and hypocrisy, I'm being insincere. I'm not an Evolutionist, so I can't really argue from that perspective. I'm stuck with compassion, a most uncomfortable and ill-fitting bed. So, yes, care for the sick. Care for their health. First part of which is to promote health, but that may be a closed barndoor after escaped livestock thing. Once sickness has happened -- using our most passive of grammatical voices -- who best to do the caring? Hirelings? Yes, in the absence of family. Which is absent, in our increasingly non-traditional society. But which hirelings.

Oddly, the Constitution dictates the answer. In our one-time federated system, those powers and duties not expressly assigned to the National Government are reserved, and entrusted, to the Local. But that is yet another tale from the past, and reality is what it is. So at least some portion of healthcare -- or rather a very large totality is mandated, under the mottled aegis of our national bird, the turkey.  Turkeys, bred for fatness, to be eaten.

That's all. It's about identifying, not changing, the situation. I care more about meaning than results. Because I'm all about compassion, and so the more misery there is, the more meaningful my life must be.  We select each other, Nature, and myself.  

Amen.


J

Supremacy, Sodomy and Slavery

I have deeply wished to avoid this.  It's too much.  I find myself driven to it.  Therefore:

Last week the Supreme Court created a new right, a new institution, a new Constitution and a new country.  Apparently we, we, were asleep.  It turns out that we are the unworthy servant, given a talent which we buried; while the other side is the more worthy, the good and faithful servant to its cause, and will receive its rich reward now, regardless of what is to come.  Rather than be bold and resolute and fearless and energetic in our cause, we retreated into civility and adherence to rules and decorum, while they were brazen, fierce and successful.

Years ago for some reason in my disparate readings in history I came upon the tale of some Sheikh or Pasha or Emir who had purchased a lovely blue-eyed slaveboy and wished as was the custom to enjoy some sodomy. A Western traveler inquired of the potentate how such an insertion might be achieved, against a determinedly resistant sphincter.  Steady pounding, was the reply -- no resolve is sufficient to resist constant pressure upon such a minor muscle, designed as it is to keep things in, not out.  Test it for yourself.

I now believe it is inevitable that, given generational time, the Left will always prevail.  Erosion is a law of nature.  Attrition is the greatest general.  Degeneration is the rule of civilizations.  Entropy is universal. Drip drip, anal leakage.

Last week issued the irrefutable affirmation of the Supreme Court's supremacy, and of course at first as is my way I felt nothing.  Profound stillness, as the Spirit upon the Deep.  But I slipped the hold I have on myself and allowed emotion and judgment in, and concluded that this was truly the end of America, the end of American exceptionalism.  We are now just another country.  This fact brought only a dull depression, nothing profound, which surprised me.  About a day later I realized that my timing was wrong. We stopped being America over forty years ago, with Roe v Wade.

Life is far more important than the institution of marriage.  We allowed the Supreme Court to well and truly assert its supremacy with that power grab, that plunge into insanity, where life itself is defined as not meaningful, given a woman's right to privacy and feelings.  As if life were not, above any other consideration, public.  Ah well, no matter.  How much less, the meaning of marriage than the meaning of life.  And conservatives are polite and will never impose, the New Testament commandment to be bold notwithstanding.  As it is the scorpion's nature to sting, it is ours to be silent and comply.

As I say, there is too much to say.  How did this perversion creep into our system?  It was inserted, like a penis, by John Marshall with his invention of Judicial Review, whereby the Court upon a merest majority may nullify any law.  Which is a good idea, in principle, but it had the effect of making the smallest, least, most inconsequential branch of our Federal system into the most powerful.  

This is undeniably a profound perversion -- a check without a balance.  What business had the court to say a law is unconstitutional?  The job was to adjudicate cases under the law, not over it.  If the court deemed a law unconstitutional, would not the proper recourse have been to refer the matter back to Congress?  Breathtaking in its audacity.

Allow me to state the obvious: the Supreme Court is supreme only over our Judicial system.  It is not supreme over the Constitution, nor the Legislative nor the Executive Branch.  The President is the supreme Executive, and the two houses of Congress are the supreme Legislators.  See how that works?  No one else ever seems to have noticed this before.  There are three Supremacies, the least of which is the Court.  

Andrew Jackson was a disaster and wrong about almost everything.  He was right about the Court, in his putative statement, that the Court had made its decision, now let it enforce it.  No government official takes the oath of office to support and uphold the Constitution as the Supreme Court asserts it to be -- rather, it is one's own conscience and intellect that must dictate conduct.  This very easy fact is made somehow impossible to grasp.

Precedent and custom have made this essential to be nugatory.  What remedy?  A movement  on our part for a constitutional amendment?  -- to repudiate the specific of gay so-called marriage? -- or to forbid the Supreme Court from making law and inventing so-called rights?  A hopeless cause.  Can't unring a bell, in any case.  Can't uncrack the Liberty Bell in a Supreme Court case.  The gays have invented a new thing, destroyed an old one.  

It hath made me mad.  We shall have no more marriage.

But here's the thing.  We cannot have judges dictating the course of our civilization.  We can't have that.  True, some three-fourths of the states had gay marriage, prior to the impositional diktat of the Supremes, but that was largely because state judges had struck down state bans on gay marriage.  See how that worked?  Now it's national.  All from judges.  So much for the fantasy of democracy.  We were fools ever to use the word.

How then shall we rein in our overlords, this Rampant Hyper-Minority, this Quintumvirate, this Gangbang of Five?  Well, simply, by each of the two now-subservient Branches of government, Executive and Legislative, asserting a right of Review over the Courts.  See the symmetry of it?  So elegant.  

Marshall invented the idea, and it was a good one.  Laws need to be checked for Constitutionality, and the Supreme Court is the correct body to provide that balance.  In the same way, the Court needs to be checked.  The President checks Congress via his power of veto.  Congress checks the Executive via its control of the budget (ahem, we must suppose it to be so). 

Where, where, where is the check on the Court?  Mere nomination and consent is an initial step, but some of us remember how stealth-candidate Soutor came to the bench -- approved as a conservative and manifesting as a liberal.  Initial steps alone are insufficient.

Impeachment is a theory, but it addresses wrongdoing, not incompetence or insanity or moral-depravity or -obtuseness.  While a justice, John Rutledge tried several times in several rivers to drown himself -- he was "much deranged" and  subject to "mad frolicks".  Henry Baldwin was confined to an asylum in his third year with "incurable lunacy".  He remained a member of the Supreme Court for another eleven years.  Nathan Clifford was described by a fellow justice as "a babbling idiot" -- not an invective, but a diagnosis; he refused to resign and died on the court.  Ward Hunt refused to resign because he wanted the pension -- he was paralyzed and could not speak; Congress voted him a pension to get him gone.  Frank Murphy bought illegal drugs from his pusher twice-daily.

Therefore, Congress must assert its power to nullify (a word fraught with history) odious decisions of the Court -- as, say, Dred Scott or Plessy v Ferguson.  There was no recourse, no remedy for such perversions, save Civil War and civil disobedience unto martyrdom.  There must be some more political answer, or we are a people not free but subservient. As indeed we are, but should not be.  Likewise, the President must assert his ethical and sworn duty to uphold the Constitution as he understands it.

There are several means of amending the Constitution, but the only one that's succeeded is where two-thirds of both the House and the Senate agree to send a proposal to the state legislatures, three-fourths of which agree to make it law.  A high standard.  John Marshall did not adhere to such rigor, and I suggest and propose that no one else need do so. We need not amend the Constitution to curb the abuse.

Congress shall assert its duty, as an element of its legislative mandate, upon a quorum vote of two-thirds (or three-fourths) of both Houses, to set aside a decision of the Supreme Court which Congress deems to be obnoxious ... to a reasonable interpretation of the historical understanding blah blah blah.

Likewise, the President, as the chief law-enforcement officer of the land, has the positive duty to enforce laws enacted by Congress, and no duty to enforce laws enacted by Judges -- which in any event is an impossibility.  Because of the deeply political nature of the office, the conduct of the President will be checked by popular opinion, party politics and imminent elections.
.
Will this happen?  Yes, because my blog is a National Power and I myself am a force to be reckoned with.

And yet ... you know the swirl that goes down the drain? -- sinks or toilets?  Come on in, the water's fine.  

J

A Brief Treatise on the Meaning of Words and Other Topics

Hey. Socialist morons. I already have healthcare. It's called "caring for my health". You know, lifestyle. Maybe the Left only recognizes the word with its mandatory prefix, "alternative"? What I mean is diet and exercise.

What the Left is gay for is sicknessmedicationandsurgery. I'm sure some people, most even, need that, because they didn't do that healthcare thing, about being excellent and prudent and preventative and responsible. All their braggadocio about loving steak and beer and sugar and cigs and sodomy may have been true -- they just loved it to death. They should be forced to have government sicknessmedicationandsurgery coverage. After all, convicts and prisoners always have their health controlled by the government. It's a mandatory civil right.

I seem to have heard something about liberty being important, and despite the unbelievably vile Pelosi creature puking the lie that 'now we have the liberty of healthcare'.  May hell come to her and all traitors instantly.  Liberty must always include the idea of choice. How is it that the Left loves only the choice of baby-killing? Everything else is dictated. Where's the Black Death when you need it.

"Choice", "alternative" -- words should have meaning. They should mean what they mean. I don't understand how they do it, steal words and corrupt the meanings. They're like vampires, or child molesters. 

It cannot be a mere coincidence that Nancy Patricia D'Alesandro Pelosi is an anagram of Scary dead anal politician person. Yes. It definitely means what it means. It's almost Bible Code in its prophetic inerrancy.

"Liberty". It's a word properly used as a prefix to "bell". And it also acts as an adjective modifying the word "Statue". Isn't there a half-dollar or maybe a dollar coin? There was a movie character that had it as a first name. As for what it means now, well, it's like feck, or ruth, or effable, or other lost words remembered only as syllables and phoneme strings. That's what America is. Effable. We just got effed. Thanks for that, Pelosi. It felt great. A little dry maybe. Next time have Obama grease us up a bit more. He's got oil to spare.

No, wait. I do understand how they do it. Stupid cowardly weak people let them. In this instance, Americans. But people all over the world and in every era. It's the reason there will never be a Workers' Paradise, the way we were promised with unspoken assurance by The One and all his Number Twos.

Hope and Change. We got the latter at the cost of the former. Happy now, stupid?

J

Devil's Island

 Gitmo.

I could stop there, but insight isn't the only important thing. How do we deal with blood enemies? Understand their childhoods? Well, no. That's not how we deal with them. That's a small part of understanding them, but more important than understanding is what we do about the problem. If the answer is four, I don't care if I get to it by adding one and three, or two and two, or 3.27 and 0.73 -- just get to it. We're not talking about art, here, but about reality. We deal with blood enemies by stopping them. How they are stopped is an incidental.

Gitmo is exile. It's banishment, of someone who is not fit to live among civilized people. An island in the midst of the Lake of Fire is beyond the pale, for some reason. Perhaps a few moments too many passed when summary execution would stand up to the definition of summary. Exigent evidence grew stale, and bureaucracy took over. So be it. Some other, more terrene island will have to do. Gitmo, then.

Obama has come to understand this fact. The lad is teachable? So Charles Krauthammer would have it. "Observers of all political stripes are stunned by how much of the Bush national security agenda is being adopted by this new Democratic government. Victor Davis Hanson ... offers a partial list: 'The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq (i.e. slowing the withdrawal), Afghanistan (i.e. the surge) -- and now Guantanamo.' [Liberal Jack Goldsmith] adds: rendition -- turning over terrorists seized abroad to foreign countries; state secrets -- claiming them in court to quash legal proceedings on rendition and other erstwhile barbarisms; and the denial of habeas corpus..."

Obama's latest flip-flop -- always a good thing for him to do on any of his core issues, if he has core issues -- has to do with the newly recognized efficacy of military commissions and tribunals, "accompanied by the usual Obama three-step: (a) excoriate the Bush policy, (b) ostentatiously unveil cosmetic changes, (c) adopt the Bush policy." Again, it doesn't matter how we get to the right answer. Just get there.

Elsewhere Krauthammer says Obama has a firstclass intellect and a firstclass temperament, and perhaps a thirdclass character. Close paraphrase. K is paraphrasing something said of FDR: great temperament, intellect, not so much. 

For my part, I remain unconvinced as to Obama's intellect. I think an impressive intellect requires an ability not only to manipulate words into pleasant or portentous-sounding sentences, but to express correct ideas clearly. It's not only about communication, but uncommunicated brilliance might as well be in the dark. Verbal fireworks is fine around cracker barrels or crowds of adoring fans, but it's glib.

Character shapes intellect. It has to do with the discipline to pursue truth, even if we want to disagree with the conclusion. Character agrees that four is four. We shouldn't be convinced only after the fact -- after, say, our bridge falls down because someone thought four was 390059503. Why, there's not even a four anywhere in that number! I think it's a prime!  How wrong can you be?  It's like on purpose.

We should weigh evidence according to past experience rather than theory. That's the problem with Obama. It's not just that it's all about theory. It's that his experience is limited.

He's not used to being challenged. Because he has used his firstclass intellect to overawe second-raters, his wrong theories have never been corrected. He was a lawyer, but he wasn't a litigator. See? There was never anyone else in the room to argue him down. That's necessary, for bright guys with theories. That's me, too. The difference between Obama and myself, aside from this little presidency thing, is that my ideas are shaped by evidence. And I suppose I've been shown do be wrong often enough for me to hold onto opinions loosely. There's another difference. My ideas are not my character. Obama's character is all in his ideas.

I was kidding though about being wrong -- have you ever known me to be wrong? I just needed to say that to make a rhetorical point.

How do we decide what's right? WWJD. Jesus talks about turning the other cheek, and about ocean bottoms and millstones tied around necks. Jesus talks about Hell. You don't get an infinite number of chances to be wrong. You get the duration of your lifetime. Then you get your eternity. So how do we deal with terrorists? In a harsh and civilized way.  Effectively, and according to rules.

Gitmo? Please. Even Obama's Democrats won't close it now. Embarrassing for them? They are shameless, so embarrassment doesn't apply. They pick the strangest things to be passionate about. Obartionism. Anti-defense. Carbon. Gay and terrorist rights. Um, banana slugs? Whatever. Odd things. But the opposite of defense is not offense; the opposite of defense is defeat. Gitmo is not an offense. There is a Devils Island because there are devils.


J

Attack

 Mohammad the murdering false "prophet" worshiped Satan under the name of Allah. Allah is mostly a made-up boogyman, but any reality behind it/him is demonic. It's what Satan always does, try to set himself up as God. The Arabs were just unlucky enough to be pagans at the time the child-raping sodomite Mohammad became possessed by whichever evil spirit took control of his weak and corrupt mind. It might have happened to anyone, any race with sufficiently backwards ways. But looking at the total sum of evil, it's safe to say that Mohammad is worse than Hitler.

Now. That was a sort of hate-speech. I don't hate, here. I feel no emotion about it at all. It is very likely to arouse hatred however, in moslems. You know what we call people who cannot control their emotions about other people's opinions, right? We call them, at best, fools; beyond that, they become criminals. I mean every word of what I said. Mohammad was a monster. Allah is, if anything, Satan. That's my opinion. I believe it.

But hate? It's not about my emotion. My statements, regardless of any possible truth or falseness, are obnoxious. I have the right to have obnoxious opinions. It is not discourtesy to have dissenting views. It is discourtesy to forbid them. I do not shout. You do not have to listen, and the context may be such that it's appropriate to ask me to keep my opinion to myself. That's what civility is.

The UN recently gave its support to "a global Islamic blasphemy law." I'm conflicted. I'm not against blaspheming Islam. But I'd rather not be compelled. ... Oh. Wait. Oh, I think what they mean is "anti-blasphemy laws." Hm. Sort of an anti-truth law, then. Sort of an establishment of religion thing going on here, non? 

You know, you can only really blaspheme what is true. You can't make meaningful false statements about what is false. You can be wrong, but so what? I don't care if you say 2 plus 2 is 5, or it's 3. Not meaningful.  That was the math of Room 101 -- you surely remember ... the book, 1984?  2+2=5.  Ah well, my obsolete opinion is that feeling and truth are two different things, only sometimes intersecting.  

feeling ≠ truth.  intersects, may be included in the set.  This is, as I seem to recall, sixth grade math.

I recently had contact with a fool. After a while I found it degrading, like looking into someone else's unflushed toilet bowl. We have to learn these lessons again and again. So when dealing with the atheist, the moslem, the fanatic, the egotist, the neurotic, it's a matter of identifying the teachability of the person, speaking truth, simply, and then, if need be, leaving. 

You can't instruct a closed mind. You can't raise them up; they can drag you down. The atheist does not love truth, or rationality, or reality. They love their opinion and their judgments and their emotions, all the while denying it.

Moslems are just people who believe a false religion. But that's almost everyone. It isn't their belief that matters to me. It's conduct. Alas, their conduct -- on the public stage and in history -- is repressive. Most peoples and religions have had that same problem at one time or another, and will again. Such a shame, the way human nature and the world is. 

Problem is, moslems are outbreeding the rest of us, and at current rates will control Europe within 40 years. That's would be no big deal, except these breeders are the backward ones, and their children are the same. Even that isn't such a big deal, except that they bring, at this point, their non-meltingpot third world with them. If they believed in freedom and science and that sort of thing, well, okay then. But they don't.

Same problem with Mexico. A steady stream into the US of Mexicans is fine. We can assimilate them. A flood is a different thing altogether. See? Culture is just a word for our way of life. Video games and recreational vehicles are all very nice, but that's not our way of life. Our way of life is embodied in the freedom to both believe and to say that Mohammad was a lying or insane or evil or delusional dictator, and Allah will eventually spend eternity in a lake of fire.  We can, but can choose to not, say such things.  In freedom, without fear of terror.  

The fact that the UN doesn't understand this tells us that it does not love freedom. It loves power. It seems so strange, or at least ironic, that the Left and its lapdog liberals pretend to love freedom. There is nothing or little more oppressive than legislated speechcodes. PC. 

But because the Left dominates all mass media save talk radio and a lone visual outlet, they convince shallow thinkers that they are about freedom. They are the enemy of liberty. Like the UN. Yes, sometimes we do find it expedient to treat with the enemy. But it is the enemy, and that's another truth that must be held close. It can't come as a surprise: enemies smile.


J

islamist Jokes

 Knock knock.

Who's there?
Mohammad.
Mohammad who?
Oh, I'm sorry, I should have said "boom" instead of "knock knock."

Hey, is this an audience or an oil painting?

How many mohammads does it take to blow up a nursery school?
Just one, but he has to shave off his pubes first.

I know you're there, I can hear you breathing.

An imam, a mullah and an ayatollah go into a bar. The imam says to the bartender, "Gimme a scotch on the rocks." So the mullah takes out a sword and cuts off the imam's head. The ayatollah says, "Why did you do that?" So the mullah cuts off his head. Then he cuts off the bartender's head. Then he blows up the bar. Then he straps explosive to two mentally challenged women and detonates them by remote control as they walk through a crowded marketplace.

Heh heh, yeah, so I don't go to where you work and scrub toilets! And people don't give me any respect!


I know, these jokes are not at all funny. I have to make them up myself, and it's just not my gift. The essence of humor is surprise, and my efforts here are so very predictable. I tried to find some real moslem jokes, you know, online, but there aren't any. The most I could find were some obscure Scandinavian cartoons, many of which I failed to understand.
What. I don't get it. He has a gigantic headache? He's bombed out of his head? This racist who drew the cartoon, this hate-monger the so-called Kurt Westergaard, obviously a Nazi ... oh, well, I seem to have forgotten my point. But the racist Danes seem to have objected to our righteous holey jistring -- manifesting itself most recently in our holey righteous attempt to behead the so-called Kurt Westergaard last week, or otherwise send him to hell -- by reprinting the offending cartoons. How many embassies do we have to burn down before they get our holey massage? It makes me so mad sometimes I could blow up a Jewish daycare center. But I don't have to be mad to do that. Well, a mad bomber, maybe, but that's everyone.

Hm. I seem to have undergone an attitude shift. The Stockholm Syndrome, perhaps? It's only fitting. I am a master of themes both religious and psychological. If only I could draw. Cuz I've got some terrific ideas for some cartoons.


J

Exactly

 Robert Kaplan:

"Where democratic governance does not exist, we must work with the material at hand. We have inherited our Anglo-Saxon traditions of liberty and democracy just as other peoples, with different historical experiences and geographical circumstances, have inherited theirs. And these other peoples yearn for justice and dignity, which does not always overlap with Western democracy."

Democracy may or not be the least worst system of human governance. How would I know? I have lived only under this one particular system. Everything I understand about any of the others is just other people's ideas, seeped into my brain via books and movies and gossip. What do I know about tribes? What I know about democracy is that it voted Hitler into power, and Hugo Chavez, and a ghastly, an appalling parade of stunted Napoleons in-between. Something must be flawed with this theory too, this precious democracy of yours.

The tribal system has survived rather longer than the new-fangled institutions of our democracy. Tribes are in fact the first institutions by which God dealt with mankind as a generality. When the tongues were confused at Babel, they were divided along family lines. In this, it might be said that God created tribes. Lest one bring up Nimrod and his conquests, I'd point out that Noah's family was a tribe. Point being, by any paradigm, tribes represent the first known form of human government.

As for the contemporary Middle East, the American mind isn't really suited to understand the fundamental social dynamics of the situation. We think in terms of cities and towns. Not all that relevant a concept. Our nasty hearts sometimes may try to degrade these peoples as camel jockies and goatfarmers and date pickers. 

There's nothing degrading in using camels instead of cars, or eating dates instead of cheeze puffs. Are they rural, largely? So were my grandparents. Do they call their leaders elders instead of aldermen? There may be subtleties here that I'm missing. Cuz I'm really really comfortable with the idea that a tribal leader isn't going to be more corrupt than some councilperson on the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors. The current mayor of LA is a "former" gangster. I think he's former. Corrupt? La Raza MEChA apparatchik. Pus and sewers call themselves to mind.

Tribes "don’t require Western institutions because they already have institutions of their own. What we call warlords are often, in reality, tribal elders who settle divorce cases, property disputes, and other civil conflicts for which we resort to the courts or government." How is this inferior? It offends us because it is ethnic. Exclusive. Racist. Well? So what? 

Racism is bad only when there's the expectation that we will be treated with impartiality. There are other criteria for social judgments than some theoretical and legislated 'equality'. We know this is true, and accept it, and practice it, and think it's right, when we deal with our own family. We feed our children and let other children go hungry. In other words, we are members of our tribe. It's only bad when it stops working.

So, that the benchmarks in Iraq aren't being met seems an irrelevance. They were invented months and months ago, before our wonderful SURGE got started and started making such a difference. Elections and a non-dysfunctional national government and whatever other symbols of pacific governance that we might like, are not in place. Instead we're busy bribing sheiks. So what? The sheiks, many of them, use that bribe money to promote the welfare of their people. Like aldermen and mafia dons.  They are, after all, politicians, and of a purer form.

We're buying peace? Good for us. Let it be a lasting and meaningful one. I expect it will be at least as meaningful as any we'd get from propping up some fat-bellied WOG eager to pad his expense account and salting away his bribe-money in Zurich in preparation for a lengthy London retirement.

That's the problem with Americans. We're so narrow, so provincial. Everything has to be done our way. The French have it right, and the Mexicans. They embrace their corruption, so tightly they can't tell its smell from their own. But why attack France. I'm sorry. I should have said California, a land where we love Democracy so much that our only political party is named for it.


J