Wednesday, April 30, 2008

New favorite blog

New one on the roll. This one is flat out awesome. Any woman with balls enough to call herself a shitweasel is a-okay in my book.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

More on the anti-smoking smokists

This, from my pal cf, is spectacular. RTWT.
THE BIG, brave Passive Americans responded with a vengeance. They began shouting at smokers in restaurants. They shuddered and grimaced and said "Ugh!" as they waved away the impure air. They put up little signs in their cars and homes: at first they said, "Thank You for Not Smoking," but now they feature a cigarette in a circle slashed with a red diagonal. Smokists even issue conditional invitations. I know—I got one. The woman said, "I'd love to have you to dinner, but I don't allow smoking in my home. Do you think you could refrain for a couple of hours?" I said, "Go ---- yourself," and she told everybody I was the rudest person she had ever met.

Smokists practice a sadistic brutality that would have done Vlad the Impaler proud. Washington Times columnist and smoker Jeremiah O'Leary was the target of two incredibly baleful letters to the editor after he defended the habit. The first letter said, "Smoke yourself to death, but please don't smoke me to death," but it was only a foretaste of the letter that followed:

Jeremiah OLeary's March 1 column, "Perilous persuaders... tenacious zealots," is a typical statement of a drug addict trying to defend his vice.

To a cigarette smoker, all the world is an ashtray. A person who would never throw a candy wrapper or soda can will drop a lit cigarette without a thought.

Mr. O'Leary is mistaken that nonsmokers are concerned about the damage smokers are inflicting on themselves. What arrogance! We care about living in a pleasant environment without the stench of tobacco smoke or the litter of smokers' trash.

If Mr. O'Leary wants to kill himself, that is his choice. I ask only that he do so without imposing his drug or discarded filth on me. It would be nice if he would die in such a way that would not increase my health-insurance rates [my italics].

The expendability of smokers has also aroused the tender concern of the Federal Government. I was taking my first drag of the morning when I opened the Washington Post and found myself staring at this headline: NOT SMOKING COULD BE HAZARDOUS TO PENSION SYSTEM. MEDICARE, SOCIAL SECURITY MAY BE PINCHED IF ANTI-TOBACCO CAMPAIGN SUCCEEDS, REPORT SAYS.

...

Smokers have become the new greenhorns in the land of sweetness and health, scapegoats for a quintessentially American need, rooted in our fabled Great Diversity, to identify and punish the undesirables among us. Ethnic tobacco haters can get even for past slurs on their fastidiousness by refusing to inhale around dirty little smokers; WASP tobacco haters can once again savor the joys of being the "real Americans" by hurling with impunity the same dirty little insults their ancestors hurled with impunity.

The tobacco pogrom serves additionally as the basis for a class war in a nation afraid to mention the word "class" aloud. Hating smokers is an excellent way to hate the white working class without going on record as hating the white working class.


And this is from 1990, before state-wide bans and other freedom-reducing political hijinks!

So please, hug a smoker today. Even if you have to hold your nose. Soon, a bad habit that gives pleasure will be outlawed altogether somewhere. Who will the busybodies have to be angry with? Who will they harass? We know it's not folks with guns, for obvious reasons -- they shoot back. Oh wait, now they're after trans-fats. Where does it end? When will we all be walking around wearing helmets because it's safer? In keeping with an earlier post, I say, if you don't want to be around smoke, don't be. If you don't want trans-fats in your diet, DON'T F$#@IN' EAT THEM! How hard is this?

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Mommy alert!

So, now you can't smoke at bingo games. I know plenty of people who just love smoking bans, because they don't like smoke (and, in some instances, smokers). What they don't understand is the slope we're sliding down when the government gets to make these choices for us.

Remember, there is nothing to keep a non-smoker from saying "I don't want to go to Miller's, for it is smokey and I don't like the smoke."

When the government says "you can't smoke in public places," there is a real economic impact that no one intends, and that's the difference. If a smokey bar goes out of business because not enough customers come in, well, that's life. If a regular bar/public place of business that permits smoking goes out of business because the government bans smoking from public places, then the government has just inserted itself into a market in which it has no expertise and no real accountability, and screwed up an otherwise perfectly legal business. If you can't understand the difference, you aren't paying attention.

Of course, there are all the "WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN" people -- to them, I say, if you don't want your kids around smoke, don't take them places that permit smoking. What people forget is that no one, and I mean no one, has a right to go wherever they want whenever they want -- you can get banned from bars, even if you don't smoke. Just because a non-smoker wants to eat dinner in perfect non-smoking bliss doesn't mean we that don't mind it (or, gasp, even smoke some) have to give up our seats at our places.

I keep talking about bars, because I like smokey bars, but the bingo thing is even worse. Bingo is a totally voluntary pursuit, and the bingo halls generally donate the money to charity. Now, the government has banned smoking and is interfering with the revenues generated, and the good work that bingo-charities often perform. And to the lawmaker that says "it just takes a period of adjustment," well, sometimes private businesses don't have six months to recover. Oh, and the ones that do make it through, generally make some sort of arrangement to get around the ban so they don't lose their smoking customers.

What's wrong with personal choice/responsibility determining whether businesses permit smoking? There are plenty of non-smoking restaurants and such here in town, and they do fine, as do the ones that permit smoking. To non-smokers who think smoking bans are okay -- I say remember that you don't have any right to go to Miller's, or Blue Light, or West Main, or wherever -- the owner can bar you from the premises for whatever reason, or no reason at all.

I hate Illinois Nazis.

Interesting juxtaposition

So in America (although the race was in Japan), where women can do pretty much anything they want, Danica Patrick wins an Indy Car Race. Awesome.

In Saudi Arabia, women are not permitted to drive golf carts.

And there are those who say we in America living in a fascist/theocratic dictatorship. Ugh.

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Now this is how you cuss out your manager.


Totally not safe for work or for kids. Like, not at all.

One of these is my newest client . . .

Should be interesting. Watch the video for a more complete initial rundown.

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Tuesday, April 01, 2008

So, when Hillary lies and lies and lies, does anyone hear it?

Remember when she said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, and then we found out that she was born years before he ascended Mt. Everest?  We all just laughed it off - she's a Clinton, after all, and this little cute lie doesn't really matter.  

Well, Christopher Hitchens unleashes his peculiar and effective venom on Hillary for the Tuzla story (you know, where she had to duck sniper fire, save a baby, ride a goat to safety, and then broker a peace deal), and it's pretty strong -- like cobra strong.