Tag: public affairs

Canadian researchers have discovered something positively astounding. The headline from The Pacific Standard puts it best. “Study: Everyone hates environmentalists and feminists.” ( http://www.salon.com/2013/09/26/study_everyone_hates_environmentalists_and_feminists_partner/ )

This is described as “troubling new research.” Gee, are you troubled to hear that everybody hates feminists? I’m not!

Researchers expressed amazed disappointment that “support for feminist goals is hampered by a dislike of feminists.” Who would’ve thought it? It doesn’t seem to have occurred to them that maybe people don’t like the activists’ goals any more than they like the activists.

The study only covered perceptions of feminists–who are almost universally believed to be “unhygienic” and “shrewish”–and environmental activists, perceived by normal people as “hippies” and “tree-huggers.” Somehow I don’t think other breeds of bullying fanatic–homosexual militants, say, or ACORN–would be esteemed any more than these.

Could this dislike of activists possibly, just maybe, have anything to do with people not grooving on being called names, and being told to “change” this or that aspect of their lives just to accommodate the activists’ esoteric and usually asinine beliefs?

Nah… It must be just because regular people are stupid and don’t appreciate the wonderful things that feminists and environmentalists are trying to do for them. Drag us kicking and screaming into Utopia.

Only an academic or a media pinhead would be “troubled” to learn that people hate environmentalists and feminists.

Everybody else already knew that.

So The Daily Mail–how come we can only get news like this from British media?–has reported that more than half of “President” Barack Obama’s loyal Twitter followers are… well, fake. ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2430875/Barack-Obama-19-5m-fake-Twitter-followers.html )

“More than 19.5 million of his 36.0 million Twitter followers are accounts that don’t correspond to real people,” reports the Mail. “Of the president’s 36.9 million Twitter followers, an astonishing 53 percent… are fake accounts… Just 20 percent of Obama’s Twitter buddies are real people who are active users.”

Sounds like it accurately reflects the actual makeup of the man’s voting base. Maybe just 20 percent of his votes came from real people who were, in fact, eligible to vote.

White House spokesman Fidel Castro Fruitcake, however, proposed a different explanation:

“What’s the big deal? Fifty-three percent of the people in America are not real people, anyway. Where does it say you have to be real, to vote and get food stamps in this country? It just goes to show there’s a fake-ist bias in America, a hate aimed at fake people.”

He declined to comment on rumors that the president’s next nominee for the Supreme Court will be a person who does not actually exist.

He has a point, though. I don’t know about you, but I’m not so sure Obama himself is real.

 

Socialist utopia news update (via today’s Drudge Report): The workers’ paradise of Venezuela reports an acute shortage of–uh-oh!–toilet paper. They’re also kinda low on milk and sanitary napkins and a few other frills; but the big problem is, they’re running out of toilet paper.

Suspecting a sly capitalist plot, government goons–er, troops–have seized the toilet paper factories. [Question: Why didn’t they listen to the Global Warming crowd when Sheryl Crow suggested people be restricted to just two sheets of toilet paper per visit to the john?] The government has ruled out any possibility that its own heavy-handed interference in the manufacturing and supply sector of the national economy could be in any way responsible for shortages. It must be the work of enemies of the people.

But not to worry, America: it can’t happen here.

Because if we run out of toilet paper, a few copies of the 2,500-page Obamacare legislation ought to supply a whole town for a week.

Yes, it’ll hurt, using copies of Obamacare in loo of toilet paper.

But then Obamacare is going to hurt us no matter how we use it.

 

Well, I’m sick again, so don’t expect much from this post. I won’t describe my symptoms, except to say they’re painful and disgusting.

A little song has been going through my mind, one which my mother used to sing to me when I was a tot:

I love me, I think I’m grand!

When I go to the movies, I hold my hand.

I put my arm around my waist,

When I get fresh, I slap my face.

Then I read on Free Republic that some disgraced public figures are back in the news. Hot dog.

Gennifer Flowers is back, telling British newspapers all about her intimacies with Bill Clinton, and how Hillary swings both ways, yatta-yatta–oops, my stomach won’t stand this. Will these people never go away and leave us alone? Must we be constantly reminded that we are governed by weirdos? But they love themselves so much, they just can’t stay out of the news.

And Tom DeLay is back. Three years ago a kangaroo court found him guilty of corruption on a massive scale. Now an appeals court has overturned that conviction, on the grounds that the evidence presented by the prosecution didn’t about to a hill of beans. The question FR readers are asking is, “So where does he go to get his reputation back?”

Something is wrong here. Tom DeLay gets wrongfully convicted, finally vindicated by a higher court after three years of wrangling, and his political career is over, kaput, kaflooey. But Slimeball Bill and Hardball Hillary just go on and on forever. You’d think she’d be toast, after what happened in Benghazi–but no, she’s presidential timber. After Benghazi, she’s gonna get a curtain call.

How much more of this can we stand?

 

So who’s a journalist and who ain’t? That’s what the Senate Judiciary Committee is getting ready to decide. They’re fixing to define as a journalist an employee or agent or contractor for some agency which disseminates news or information… HAHAHAHAHAH

Sorry about that: just couldn’t help it. But based on recent performance, don’t you think a better definition, a more accurate one, might be “an employee or agent or contractor for some agency which suppresses news or information adverse to any president or other national figure belonging to the Democrat Party, and disseminates propaganda favorable to such persons”?  Might we not define a news organization as “the public relations apparatus of the Democrat Party”? And of course it sucks up to all persons or agencies promoting any kind of wacko left-wing agenda.

It always amazes me, how many people, who get their news strictly from the Big Media, never heard of Climategate and have no idea that Global Warming has indeed been unmasked as a fraud; never heard how John Kerry got three Purple Hearts in three months without even spending three minutes in a military hospital; never heard anything detrimental to our First Voter Fraud President… and so on. “News” organizations and the “journalists” who work for them suppress news. Any reporter who tries to find out and report the truth about, for instance, what happened in Benghazi, soon finds himself as badly off as Karl Kolchak in “The Night Stalker” trying to get the word out about monsters from Hindu mythology eating up Jewish senior citizens in Chicago.

I consider myself a journalist, at least by training and experience. I don’t need Chuck Schumer to tell me so. In fact, if he told me I was a journalist, I would begin to think perhaps I wasn’t.