Oh Boo Fucking Hoo

Cue the violins:

So Mrs. Clooney / Julia Roberts-lookalike Amal Clooney gets all whiny about The Donald putting the boot into the Jackals Of The Press:

Amal Clooney said President Trump ‘vilifies the media’ and makes journalists ‘all over the world vulnerable to abuse’ among other jabs during a multi-day conference in London.
The human rights lawyer was speaking along with British foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt on Wednesday when she made her first remark.
Without mentioning Trump by name, she said: ‘The country of James Madison has a leader today who vilifies the media, making honest journalists all over the world more vulnerable to abuse.’

Abuse, my suffering African-American asshole:  1) there’s no such thing as an “honest journalist” nowadays, and 2) never mind Twatter abuse, modern journalists should get daily ball-kickings or scourgings to get them pointed in the right direction.  Trump lets them off lightly, given their boorishness and naked partisan behavior.

And referring to my earlier comment:  ever wonder why Amal Clooney and Julia Roberts have never been seen together in the same room?


Face it:  if the lawyer looked like (say) Maxine Waters and was married to Wallace Shawn, the Press wouldn’t be able to pick her out of a lineup.

I can see why Clooneywife is so sensitive about the media:  without their fawning and uncritical support over the years, she’d still be signing property transfer contracts in Kabul, let alone married to Mr. Hollywood and splitting her time between an estate on the Thames and a villa on Lake Como.

Not Gonna Happen

Over at PJM, ol’ Roger thinks our presidential campaigns are too long (I agree) and wants to do something about it:

How about postponing the campaign until Thanksgiving and allowing the country and Congress to go about their real business? The British manage their campaigns in only 60 days. Maybe we could squeeze it down to, say, 180.

While he makes some excellent points about the folly of long election campaigns, Roger falls into the liberal trap of wishful thinking.  Whenever some asswipe Lefty (i.e. all of them) makes some stupid proposal, the common response from conservatives is twofold:

  • “How are you gonna pay for it?” — OR —
  • “How are you going to do that, exactly ?”

To whit:  “Free health care for everybody” gets question #1 in response;  and “We’re going to come around to your house and take away your guns!” gets question #2.

The problem with trying to limit the length of presidential (or any) electoral campaigns is that we have that pesky Constitution, in the form of the First Amendment.

If it’s (say) a week before Thanksgiving and someone says, “When I’m president, I will…”, telling someone that “You’re not allowed to say that yet” would result in you getting your pee-pee severely whacked by the courts, and deservedly so.

The Brits get away with their 60-day election campaigns by simply banning election speeches and so on before the start date.  Try doing that in the U.S. of A., and a shit-storm will ensue.  We’re a free people, and if Governor Sextoy Butt-Plug (D) of Michigan wants to announce in 2019 that she’s going to run for the presidency in 2031, she’s perfectly within her rights.

I’m irritated by  the perpetual campaigning thing myself, but at the same time, the First Amendment is more important than my irritation.  Some people are frightened by guns, but the Second Amendment is more important than their trepidation.  That’s how the whole thing works, even if it is inconvenient sometimes.

Who’s Costing What

It is inevitable that whenever a service is limited, talk will turn towards issues like “who is more deserving of it?” or “should people pay more if they use the service more?”, and so on.  Insurance companies have a hold on this measurement in that, for example, young men pay more for auto insurance because they have more accidents and drive more recklessly than middle-aged women do.

Where this all starts falling apart is when it gets taken to its logical extreme:  should fat people pay more for airline tickets when their weight requires more fuel to power the plane off the runway?  Sure, say all the skinny people;  fuck you, say the chubbies.

And that’s for a pay service.  The argument becomes even sharper when it’s a free (to consumers) service such as, say, Britain’s National Health Service (NHS), which is going to become still more of an issue Over Here as the U.S. inches towards a “single-payer” (i.e. State-provided) healthcare system.

So who costs the healthcare service more:  fat people or smokers?  In her inimitable style, Brit journo Janet Street-Porter (who is skinny) scolds future BritPM Boris Johnson (who is chubby) for saying that fat people don’t cost the NHS as much as smokers.

Sorry, Boris but fat people are costing the NHS just as much as smokers ever did so why shouldn’t they face the same shame and taxes?
It’s official, eating yourself to an early death is a human right which must be protected.
Boris Johnson – who could be our next Prime Minister, a prospect which fills me with fear and loathing in equal measure- wants to review the levies on sugary food and drink because they ‘hurt the poor’. He calls them ‘sin taxes’.
This is shameless electioneering, stooping to a new low to grovel for votes.
What really hurts the poor is discovering your child needs every tooth filled and there are no dentists for hundreds of miles.
Or your teenager is too fat to play sport and is being bullied at school. Every extra kilo around a child’s waist is another year off their lives.
Giving people on low incomes the freedom of choice to buy unhealthy food is not a policy anyone who cares about humankind should be proud of. It is retrogressive and patronising.
Food laced with sugar and fat SHOULD be taxed, and that money ploughed back into the National Health service.

For starters, this whole “shaming” thing should be called what it really is:  bullying.  Shame  is what you should feel if you commit a sin or a crime (some overlap);  only scolds and control freaks (some overlap) want to ascribe the eating of a hamburger or a chocolate bar as sinful, and therefore worthy of taxing.

Hey, let’s not stop there.  If we’re talking about costs to a nationalized healthcare system, let’s not stop with smokers and chubbies;  what about car drivers, cyclists and motorcyclists?  I mean, we’ve all seen the accident reports and injury stats — why not tack a tax onto car, bicycle or motorcycle purchases to help cover those  costs to the healthcare system?  (Feel free to add your  suggestions as to ways to squeeze yet more tax dollars from citizens.  Indulge your inner politician.)

I’m making a joke about this, but make no mistake:  at some point this nonsense — especially when supported by media assholes like Street-Porter — starts becoming policy.  And we need to nip it in the bud, hard.

Let’s end this little discussion with a thought from Janet:

It’s the duty of responsible parents and schools to promote healthy eating, and the duty of supermarkets to promote real unprocessed food over junk.

Yeah… we know better than parents what’s good for their children, and (channeling Michelle Obama) schools shouldn’t serve meals that aren’t blessed by the Nutrition Police.  And supermarkets shouldn’t serve their customers’ needs and wants;  they should only serve foods that we say they should.  (Corollary:  and if our “suggested” foods turn out to be completely wrong — e.g. the food pyramid espoused by the FDA for decades — then that’s just tough titties.)


Not Buying It

Looks like ol’ Jim Treacher’s getting all bent out of shape about this story, but right out the box I’m not buying Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s story — and nor are others.  Here’s why I feel the way I do.

1) AOC is a habitual liar.  In her short career as a House Rep., AOC has lied, fabricated and exaggerated about just about everything:  her background, her home life, her campaign finances… the list is endless, because she lies every time she speaks, and she speaks constantly:  a nonstop barrage of bullshit.

2) All socialists lie, whether to conceal crimes (e.g. Hillary Clinton and her illegal email server) or to further their agenda (e.g. gun controllers using false data), or in service of their philosophy (“we protect the people against the bosses”), or for immediate political gain (the current border emergency).  AOC is just a poster-child for this lying.

When AOC says that Border Patrol officers threatened her, I don’t believe her.  It’s quite possible they made fun of her or made derogatory remarks to each other about her — but that’s not a threat.

What I think happened was that Representative Snowflake may have felt  threatened by having a bunch of armed officers standing around her — gun-fearing wussies often are — and they may not have given her the respect she felt she deserves — fair enough, considering that she wants to eliminate all their jobs — but none of that is threatening behavior.  The fact is that her “fact-finding” mission was a total bust:  she couldn’t find any evidence of bad stuff to buttress her absurd claims of “border concentration camps”, so she’s made up all these bullshit accusations to compensate (not to mention being overcome with grief at the sight of an empty parking lot).

This silly little girl’s fifteen minutes of fame are almost up, and I hope that the voters of her district show some sense and toss her skinny ass out of Congress next year.

And perhaps Treacher’s pearl-clutching is actually satirical, but it sure doesn’t read like that.

*If actual proof of threats and such become available — note the word proof  — then I’ll change my opinion.  I won’t be holding my breath.

Cheater’s Penalty

I read this report with sadness:

A man has sued his unfaithful estranged wife after discovering that he is not the father of her eight-year-old son.
The man wants the woman to return ‘every penny’ he spent on the child he thought was his but was actually fathered by someone she had an affair with.
He also wants damages to compensate for distress and wants her to reveal the name of the other man.

My sadness is because of the effect all this will have on the child.  For the cheating ex-wife?  Not a smidgen of pity.

In the old days, a child born within the marriage was assumed both legally and morally to be the child of the husband — and it made a great deal of sense.  Nowadays, with morality in tatters but with scientific tools such as DNA testing, that old standard is unnecessary.

In fact, I believe that all babies should get DNA-tested at birth.  If the baby is born to a married couple and the husband is found to be not the father, then the actual father should be identified and forced to pay child support.  If the woman is unmarried, of course, then the same should apply.  (If she doesn’t know who the father is, then everything that follows is her own fault.)

Adultery that results in pregnancy should carry a penalty of some sort.  The husband should not be penalized for his wife’s infidelity and carelessness.  Good grief:  if sperm donors  are being forced to pay child support (as is beginning to happen in Europe — pure foolishness), then Roger The Lodger should have to face the same consequence.

Gloves Off

So here’s a cute little thing on Twatter:

What amuses me is that the people who post shit like this are not going to be the ones throwing bricks.

Okay.  So if you’re going to resort to hurling dangerous-if-not-lethal objects at us, then you’ll have no problem with us using dangerous-if-not-lethal bullets against you?

I repeat, for the umpteenth time:  are you Leftist lunatics absolutely sure  you want to start down this road?