Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Ewe Made Me Love Ewe...

Jesus Fucking Roosevelt Christ on a Fucking Pogo Stick, what part about fucking consent don't you fucking understand?

When Rand Paul lets his Inner Libertarian out for a walk that little bastard just goes skipping off pretty much anywhere, don't he?
"I think this is the conundrum and gets back to what you were saying in the opening -- whether or not churches should decide this. But it is difficult because if we have no laws on this people take it to one extension further. Does it have to be humans? I'm kind of with you, I see the thousands-of-year tradition of the nucleus of the family unit. I also see that economically, if you just look without any kind of moral periscope and you say, what is it that is the leading cause of poverty in our country? It's having kids without marriage. The stability of the marriage unit is enormous and we should not just say oh we're punting on it, marriage can be anything."
No, dumbfuck.

Look, I've visited this whole business over and over again. My position is - and, by inference, my opinion that the opinion of any sane human should be - if you're adults, then you should be able to form any sort of goddamn domestic union you want.

Yes, that means polygamy.

And polyandry.

Boys and boys? Yep. Girls and girls? Yep. Boys and boys and girls and girls?


Boys and sheep?



Because a sheep - and a child, or a person who is emotionally or mentally a child, or someone who is comatose, or a corpse, or anyfuckingotherthing that cannot fucking understand the meaning of the emotional and physical intimacy of a personal relationship (call it marriage or bunga or whatever the hell else you want to call it) - cannot fucking consent to that intimacy.

And, mind you, this moron is supposed to be the "Thinking Man's Conservative". This silly fucktard is supposed to be among the Best and the Brightest that the GOP has on sale. This is the 1% of the Intellectual Wing of the GOP, for God's sake.

Can you imagine what the hell Sarah "Somewhere In Alaska My Village Is Missing Its Idiot" Palin thinks on this issue?

I mean, fuckadoodledoo; consent. Consent. Consent as in "consenting adults".


How fucking hard is that?


Syrbal/Labrys said...

But Chief....they don't care about consent. Nor do the Rape-publicans. They care about how old white guys have been privileged to do it forEVAH.

Leon said...

Some people don't like change. They complained about it when they weren't allowed to beat their wives or own slaves.

It'll just take a century or two for these poor oppressed (majority) to recover.

FDChief said...

Yeah, I know...still...WTF? Do they say this stuff because they really believe it (in which case they MUST be either fools or monstrously self-deluded) or because they think the people they say it to will believe it (in which case they must have the most appalling contempt for the intelligence of their followers)?

I mean, if you want to make a case that homos are eeeeevil you can drag out the old Levitican horseshit and the usual Old Testament desert tribal babble. But it just seems to me that you can't make this case. Period. No polity in the land - none - allows someone who can't "consent" to be a party to a legal marriage. No kids. No mental cripples. No pets. Period.

So how the hell do these people get away with this "man-on-dog" stuff? Don't their own fellow wingnuts call bullshit on 'em? Do they WANT the rest of us to see them as...well, too goddamn stupid to be capable of "consent" their ownselves?

Ael said...

Silly chief, they are not actually trying to communicate, rather they are involved in sonar range finding.

Think fish swimming in a school.

Except the water is too dark for the fish to see each other. So the fish make familiar noises to one another. The fish then try move to the center of the school where it is safest. Of course, the center changes constantly, so you have this constant churning happening.

On the outside of the school, you have a few predators swimming, gobbling up an occasional fish who didn't put themselves in the middle of the school.

teo said...

"Conservatives" - unclear what are they trying to conserve - are fighting a losing battle regarding traditional family. For the time being at least this is a clearly unproductive arrangement in North America and is rapidly becoming a minority one.
Not in front of the various niche arrangements you enumerated Chief but in front of the monoparental family. Single motherhood.
That is the big story.
Males have a diminished economic role so they are reduced to a logical and rational position. They compete with each other to convince the girls to mate and breed with them.
Sometimes if they are really stupid they will be followed by the state and forced to pay. Smart boys leave the burden entirely to the state. We can see this trend gaining a lot of momentum.
Almost half of the kids in the country come to the world through this method.
It is not a bad one. The success this type of families has is pretty obvious when looking at its rapidly increasing prevalence and its clear success in taking over one metropolitan area after another.
S it is a change. Gays and polygamists are very small exotic varieties.
How long do you think could the gays resist in front of the Trayvons?

I absolutely agree with everything you say about GOP. But they are only playing their part as the bad cop.
For some time we have the good cop on power. He is exactly the same as the bad cop.
Focusing on GOP is useless. It is a shape. Just like the Dems. No substance at all.
The descent into a corrupt oligarchic empire of the great republic is relentless.
Of course people are too busy to notice this trend. They are busy debating various problems regarding the gay community.

By the way I have noticed you haven't approached the Trayvon case anymore. Shouldn't we call for the lynching to begin? Too long time has passed already.
Even dear president seems too busy arming Al-Nusra to spare time for some lynching calls.
Is there anything wrong?

PS. As an opinion trying to clarify my point of view I shall quote Khomeini:
"America is worse than Britain; Britain is worse than America. The Soviet Union is worse than both of them. They are all worse and more unclean than each other!"
Same opinion about Dems and GOP.

FDChief said...

Ael: So this is just one of the monkeys making monkey noises to the other monkeys recognize him as one of the troop? I guess I get that, but you'd think they'd find some smarter noises...

teo: What's funny is that I can't think of anything more boringly traditional than "marriage" with all the trappings of the suburban house and the Volvo station wagon. You'd think that the "conservatives" would be thrilled that these couples would be "settling down" and complaining about their property taxes and the local school board...

But I'm sorry; you can't look at these latest Supreme Court decisions and claim "The GOP and the Democrats are the same". Yes, the Dems are shitty on a lot of issues. Yes, they're spineless and craven before corporate cash. But just look at the difference between the Democratic justices and the appalling shit that Dubya and his daddy foisted on us and I can't see how there's "no difference" in the results there.

And I cannot see any point in commenting on the Zimmerman case. As Pierce keeps saying; nothing good will come of it. Nothing at all.

Syrbal/Labrys said...

I'm not sure that the people under discussion have ever been taught how to really think about anything; they have been taught a small-canvas sort of belief and told that stepping or coloring outside those lines is fatal on every level. And that anyone happily living outside those lines is evil itself.

Rationality has nothing to do with it, also I feel there is an element of narcissism on a whole new destructive level....what serves their conformity with thoughtless hatred is good, and that which does not is beyond the bounds of consideration. And THUS you get man on dog, cause hey, if it feels good and does NOT violate Levitican horseshit, then it's all good.

We need childhood immunization against this shit....which is why I went over the Bible with my kids explaining the whys, wherefores, and lack of need for such craziness NOW; historical and political CONTEXT is NOT part of the teaching of those advancing the "Do it my way or to the FIRE" sorts.

teo said...

1. " In 1970, 11% of births were to unmarried mothers; by 1990, that number had risen to 28%. Today, 41% of all births are to unmarried women. For mothers under 30, the rate is 53%."

There ain't much to "conserve".
Homosexuals are tiny sideshow in this great social change.
I do not have a dog in the fight so for me this social experiments playing out in US are just that. A nice experiment on a large scale test population.
I just noticed that homosexuals and if they get married or whatever has an insignificant importance.
I have no interest in the issue.
The big issue is the complete change in social/familial environment in which America raises its children.
Of course that is absolutely uninteresting from a media point of view. I accept this fact.
We have already knew how an America with traditional families looks like. Abhorrent for many people.
And might I say uninteresting, we already knew how it looks like. Nothing to see there anymore.
But the new one is interesting.
Fascinating even.

2. About Trayvon.
I have noticed that a lot of people starting with the president and even you started crying for a nice lynching of the white racis'. Unfortunately the white racis' proved to be a Peruvian.
So now the ones who got promised a nice lynching are afraid they are going to be cheated. And yet going on seems to make no sense anymore.

I understand why the president was asking for a lynching.
Why people like you were asking for it is a mystery for me. That is the reason I wrote.
When you thought the shooter had a personal profile similar to your son you asked for him to be harshly punished.
But then hey he shows up to be a fake, he is a Peruvian with Amerindian ancestry. So now there is nothing to see here anymore. No cries for his blood anymore.

You are a great analyst of military history. Great talent for poetry.
But these forays into US's present social hot spots are not of the same caliber.

FDChief said...

Labrys: I wonder if part of this hysteria is the sense that the fundies are "losing", in the sense that they are having trouble indoctrinating kids now that churchgoing is slipping?

FDChief said...

teo: Well, you get the social commentary with your poetry and battles; it's all or nothin', that's how we roll around here. Xin loi, man.

OK, re: bastardy, you've effectively proved that if you cherry-pick your statistics you can "prove" anything.

1970 was the apex of the Victorian experiment in "conventional morality" for the masses that climaxed here in the U.S. between 1945 and 1975. For thirty-odd years everything in our culture - mass media, politics, religion, the arts, music, economics - combined to push the bulk of Americans into the conventional box labelled "two-parent family".

Men had a fairly good selection of well-paying work that enabled them to support a wife and a relatively small number of kids in a middle-class or nearly-middle-class lifestyle. Women did NOT, which encouraged them to find such a man and stay with him. Kids were effectively legal, social, and economic nullities, extensions of their parents, if anything.

Between 1975 and today that had changed. Dramatically. Wages have stagnated as "productivity" (i.e. time spent working) has skyrocketed. Men outside the rentier, professional, and technical classes are finding it nearly impossible to stay afloat on one salary; the "middle-class" has largely stayed that way since 1975 by sending Mommy to work.

And since Mommy found out that she doesn't HAVE to stay married to that dick - and, let's face it, lots of us guys ARE dicks; hell, it's a wonder that Mojo stays with me - since they can bring in an income and do the childcare without him and that's pretty much often what he hands her when she's WITH him, doing it without the husband just means you don't have to put up with his shit.

So, yes, there are an assload of changes that have happened to "marriage" since 1970, but none of them have anything to do with "A nice experiment on a large scale test population." and everything to do with the social, political, and economic hammer that has hit pretty much everyone in the U.S. not making 200,000 a year...

FDChief said...

OK, you asked for it.

About the Zimmerman case. Yes, I think that Zimmerman was prejudiced against blacks. But I'm not sure that it had everything, or even the main thing, to do with who shot who that night.

I think Zimmerman was that species of asshole that needs a magazine full of hollowpoints to feel like a big man. I think he wanted to swing his 9mm dick that night and that the Martin dude just happened to be there and black. I don't think that there's anything "more" to say about prejudice, race, or racism in this case other than these fucking idiotic "stand your ground" laws are like a hunting license for assholes who need a magazine full of hollowpoints to swing their dicks to swing their dicks at anyone who irritates them.



In case you haven't noticed, us white folks pretty much fucked over them black folks for, oh, what, about 150 years? But the last sixty or so we've been real white about it, right?

For all that I don't think the Zimmerman case says shit of value about the power of whiteness in the U.S. and the problems of blackness, I dare you, or anyone, to say, or even pretend to themselves, that there ARE neither of those things. Yes, rich and white trumps poor and white. Yes, there are exceptions. There are ALWAYS exceptions.

But...I will draw your attention to this; in the post that I assume you refer to ( what I said was:

"So, for me, the important thing here, now, is that this shooter goes to jail. Goes to trial. Gets convicted - assuming the evidence shows that he did what he seems to have done, pursued an unarmed man into a fight and then killed him - and spends a long, long time in prison. Hell, we all have an interest in seeing that the people who use bloody-handed methods to emphasize the fucked up things we believe swiftly take the long step to the end of the short rope that German soldier took in Pont-avec-Crap back in 1878.

Because if we don't; if we convince enough people that the law is for you and not for me, that they might as well be hung for what they did do rather than what they didn't and some ignernt asshole thinks they did...well...

...then the village becomes unquiet and we've taken the first steps up the pass over the mountains of madness."

See the difference?

I'm not talking about lynching anyone. I'm talking about the fact that if the shooter was black and the dead guy was white the shooter would have been locked up facing murder charges - at LEAST - that very night. And instead, because of a fucked up law and a bad DA...and the fact that the dead guy was just another nigra in a hoodie, I suspect...the shooter wasn't even indicted for fucking manslaughter, which is pretty much the description of running down an unarmed man and shooting him.

I'm sorry we had to revisit this piece of shit; it says nothing good about any of us, nothing good about our country, and nothing good about human beings as a species.

FDChief said...

But I should add this;

I went back and read the comment thread from the post I quoted, and teo said that I wanted the Zimmermans, the racists, to die.

And I have to admit that, yes, that needs to happen.

Not by execution (although if Zimmerman should be convicted of first degree murder - which he will NOT be, since I don't think is WAS murder in the first degree - he may very well find such an end, given the laws of the great state of Florida) but by old age. AND without being capable of passing their racism down to their kids and grandkids.

We beat slavery that way. We beat the notions like the ones that said that your wife was your property, like your car or your sofa, or that you could rape people so long as they didn't say anything about it.

But let me tell you; the adults I grew up with in the Sixties and Seventies? They STILL believed that shit. Nothing changed their minds. They just learned to shut up about it, so their kids didn't learn it from them, or learned less of it so that it wasn't so toxic. And finally they died, and their old hates and racisms died with them.

Now we still have a lot of those problems today; they're largely confined within the wingnut tribe of the GOP. And right now they're getting stronger and more open because people like me forgot for a long time that you can't just let those sorts of sorry racist, sexist, ignorant bastards be. You have to harry them, and fight them, and run them to earth, and drive the stake of public shame into their hearts to pin them in place helpless until they die and their toxic ideas die with them.

And that's it. I'm done on this post, and this subject.

teo said...

"And since Mommy found out that she doesn't HAVE to stay married to that dick - and, let's face it, lots of us guys ARE dicks; hell, it's a wonder that Mojo stays with me - since they can bring in an income and do the childcare without him and that's pretty much often what he hands her when she's WITH him, doing it without the husband just means you don't have to put up with his shit."

I absolutely agree with you.
I wasn't explicit enough with the "experiment " expression. I was not thinking in terms of a conspiracy or social engineering.
The economic ecosystem has changed and so the social one is changing accordingly.
In this sense it is a social "experiment".
A large population has transitioned from a social structure where the female has to stick with the male - northern regions had this arrangement due to obvious reasons - to an environment where males sticking around is optional and many times undesirable - a tropical model, females can get food and shelter without males.
It is nice to observe the whole array of changes which impact the social structure. Of course we have some small cases like Detroit or Saint Louise but never before on a continental scale. As I said it is a fascinating social experiment on a very large scale.
Neither liberalism nor conservatorism has anything to do with it.
Of course a lot of monkeys come out and make a lot of noise about various issues , conclusions being always the same. Me smart and on the good side. Should lead the pack and enjoy the tribes resources. The opposing monkeys bad, should be run out of our forest.

Teo said...

"Now we still have a lot of those problems today; they're largely confined within the wingnut tribe of the GOP. And right now they're getting stronger and more open because people like me forgot for a long time that you can't just let those sorts of sorry racist, sexist, ignorant bastards be. You have to harry them, and fight them, and run them to earth, and drive the stake of public shame into their hearts to pin them in place helpless until they die and their toxic ideas die with them."

You are right. I agree with you. Just that you are not looking at the problem from the right angle.
A multi ethnic society has the type of problems you identified. And they are now coming back with a vengeance. It is never as simple as it seems in sociology.
I shall give you an example connected to the case we discuss and then we can end the debate. But it will come back again and again in different forms and shapes, unfortunately.
We got a case.
Wannabee thug beats neighbourhood watch. Watch has gun, shoots thug.
Pretty simple and even if you have a different interpretation it ain't important.
Ethnic identity policy is the elephant in the room.
So the president basically intervens and says:
"A cracker shot one of us." (As I understood the word is a pretty legitimate one and there is not a problem if it is used in the cultural context of an ethnic group living in US. That is the context in which I used it and I am not a native English speaker so I just apply what I read in US media.)
Calls one of his enforcers and says:" Eric track him down and whack him."

This dear Chief is tribal policy at its best. The demon you thought was dead has come back. It is the same one. It is called inter ethnic conflict.
Some try to avoid this very unpleasant fact. You are one of them. No, if we hear nothing and wish for the best, harmony or something similar will happen.
Others got the message loud and clear.
In ethnically diverse societies if you show weakness you will get hit. Hard. Unpleasant as it is this is human nature. It is not anyones fault.
Your choice and many other liberal minded people of joining the chorus " get the cracker" is useless. You are not going to become brothers.
I am looking at the problem at hand from a realistic point of view. I have seen this type of problems close by and there weren't any racial differences.
As the US ethnic balance changes this type of problems will get more acute.

teo said...

I can see a parallel with the enormous ethnic problems USSR had in late 80s. Especially Central Asia is interesting. Almost nothing could be done anymore without a tribe feeling cheated and reacting violently.
In order to have at least a semblance of order central structures had to give the largest community of the multi ethnic empire the short stick. Always.
maybe the Uzbecks might get angry and burn stuff. Well Russian have to take it like men.
But hey hmmmm Georgians transformed the republic into a sort of Tortuga island. Doesn't matter. Russian will have to take it like men.
And Kazakhs ... etc And Chechens, and whatever.
But of course this only led to alienating the majority ethnic group. They felt the country has become hostile to them. So at one point we got a Russian Federation plus ethnic independent states and no union of the people.
US is somewhere around the USSR of the 80s I think.

PS. The issue is extremely interesting but very hard to touch it due to US's peculiar racial problems. The problem is less a racial one and more of a tribal one.
PPS. Nothing good can come out of it. Especially when central leaders take a very clear and explicit stance in public against the major ethnic group of the empire. Which incidentally represent the backbone of the said empire.
You take a very soviet approach to the issue. I do not know if a society like US or USSR can do anything different. Maybe not, in the end in both cases the answer to the problem was the same.
Only tiny little problem is that it can not continue ad aeternum. At one point - coupled with significant economic problems, that is a must - the major ethnic group reacts to always getting the shaft. And then the whole system cracks.
PPS. Of course there was a possible positive outcome. Going in Brazil's direction with all the good and bad that society has to offer. But the US's tendency to organize people in political groups according to race has eliminated that possible outcome, or at least made it less probable.
I do not think you would like it , because it means a Gilded age on steroids.

teo said...

I'll try to re-frame the issue in a less racial sensitive environment.
Let's pretend that USSR did not explode in ethnic independent states.
SO we get an Uzbeck shot by a Vladislav Surkov ( guy exists for real).
The Uzbecks get worked up and threaten to burn things and riot - happened a lot.
So the normal decision in order to maintain a semblance of order and ethnic peace is to arrest and make a show trial of mr Surkov, how why he shot the Uzbeck gentleman is pretty irrelevant at this point.
But then upsy big problem. Mr Surkov proves to be on this birth name Aslambek Andarbekovich Dudaev because he is half Chechen.
So what is to be done now?

Interesting case I'd say. See, it does not have to involve a racial angle. Of course in a soviet case you'd never ever encounter such idiotic ethnic identity declarations from the leadership like the current American president and his enforcer from the justice department have the tendency to emit. Never.

PS. Mr Surkov exists. He is a sort of ideologist or something of United Russia party. Deputy prime minister etc . A big shot in Russia. Formerly.

teo said...

I was trying to tell you something but i found it very hard to formulate a clear idea.
Someone else did it for me. I have found what I wanted to say.

I'd be very interested to read your comments on the issue, if you might desire to comment.
Seems to me that Fred identified the problem perfectly And more of the same won\t bring anything good..