Tears of a Clown

April 22, 2009
What's the matter?  Don't ya like clowns?

What's the matter? Don't ya like clowns?

I don’t blog to be liked.

I didn’t come here because I was lonely and wanted to make new friends.  I started blogging because I have strong opinions and a compulsive need to inflict them on other people.

I intentionally cultivated an obnoxious online persona and chose an ugly homicidal clown as my avatar because I want my arguments to stand on their own.  I don’t want people to agree with me because they like me, I want them to agree with me because they think I’m right.

If Person A says 2 + 2 = 4 and Person B says 2 + 2 = 3 then I will say that Person A is right and Person B is wrong, even if Person A is a jerk and Person B is a saint and a friend.  And I’m not going to change my position even if all my other friends side with Person B.  It’s not about how I feel about Person A or Person B, it’s about what I think is true.

Last year we saw people we liked and respected fall victim to Kool-aid logic.  They liked Obama and wanted to be part of the “in” crowd so suddenly they had no problem believing that Hillary was a racist bitch and that it was okay to call Sarah Palin a stupid c*nt.  They turned on Hillary supporters like rabid chihuahuas and attacked us as Republican ratf*ckers despite the years we spent advocating liberal causes and beliefs.

I’m not claiming to be infallible but if I have to choose between being right and being liked then I will never be popular, and I’ll never get to sit with the kewl kidz.

I can live with that.


Getting back to those tea parties . . .

April 20, 2009

(I never heard of Cody Willard before but I had a haircut like that back in 1978)

There’s something wrong when we edit people’s words in a way that changes their meaning.  Distorting the views of our opponents for shitzengiggles doesn’t help fix anything.

Natalie Merchant – Ophelia

April 19, 2009

Just because

Ad Hominem – A Logical Fallacy

April 6, 2009

Apparently I hurt the tender feelings of our poor pathetic blogstalkers, but they can’t find fault with my argument so they resort to logical fallacy.  From Wikipedia:

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: “argument to the man”, “argument against the man”) consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the source making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim.

The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.


Ad hominem argument is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as acting or arguing in accordance with the view that he is arguing against.

Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the source making the inference. However, ad hominem arguments are rarely presented as formal syllogisms, and their assessment lies in the domain of informal logic and the theory of evidence.[1] The theory of evidence depends to a large degree on assessments of the credibility of witnesses, including eyewitness evidence and expert witness evidence. Evidence that a purported eyewitness is unreliable, or has a motive for lying, or that a purported expert witness lacks the claimed expertise can play a major role in making judgements from evidence.

Argumentum ad hominem is the inverse of argumentum ad verecundiam, in which the arguer bases the truth value of an assertion on the authority, knowledge or position of the source asserting it. Hence, while an ad hominem argument may make an assertion less compelling, by showing that the source making the assertion does not have the authority, knowledge or position it claims, or has made mistaken assertions on similar topics in the past, it cannot provide an infallible counterargument.

An ad hominem fallacy is a genetic fallacy and red herring, and is most often (but not always) an appeal to emotion.


A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Source A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Source A
Therefore claim X is false

Let me repeat the money quote:

Ad hominem arguments are always invalid in syllogistic logic, since the truth value of premises is taken as given, and the validity of a logical inference is independent of the source making the inference.

I freely admit that I am a semi-civilized guy with a raunchy and politically incorrect sense of humor and that I’ve said things from time to time that were inappropriate. With Google and the obsessive focus of a blogstalker you can find some of them. But that doesn’t change the fact that I’m a flaming liberal and that when it matters my heart’s in the right place.  It also doesn’t disprove anything I said about Obama or any of his cult followers.

Kreepy Kevin and the internet vermin that hang out with him can kiss my ass.

Where Blogstalkers come from:


Just so there is no misunderstanding, by “internet vermin” I am specifically including a certain two-faced, talentless bullshitter who scammed some people out of their money and then betrayed their trust.  To that person I say:


Let them eat cake

April 5, 2009


From The Guardian:

Bankers rage at G20 “witch hunt”

Bankers and hedge fund managers were furious yesterday at attempts by the G20 to cap their pay and regulate them for the first time, calling it a “witch hunt” by world leaders.

“Regulation is generally bad. You should let the market decide what the people will get paid,” said Matthew Prest, managing director at Close Brothers investment bank. “Sometimes regulation has the opposite effect of what you want and I think bankers’ salaries regulation would fall under that category. I don’t hear anybody calling for Hollywood star salary caps. This is a trendy, fashionable thing to do, it will have bad consequences.”

The m****r-f*****g sons of whores are upset??? Why don’t they just say “Let them eat cake” and get it over with?

These f**ksticks are obviously so far removed from the rest of us that they have no clue how enraged we are.  People aren’t peeved or miffed, they are apoplectic with fury.  Normally law-abiding citizens are seriously talking about violence – and others just nod their heads in agreement.  The last time people were this pissed off we invaded a couple countries.

Serenity now!  Serenity now!

Serenity now! Serenity now!

Compare and contrast:

Teddy Roosevelt:

Too much cannot be said against the men of wealth who sacrifice everything to getting wealth. There is not in the world a more ignoble character than the mere money-getting American, insensible to every duty, regardless of every principle, bent only on amassing a fortune, and putting his fortune only to the basest uses —whether these uses be to speculate in stocks and wreck railroads himself, or to allow his son to lead a life of foolish and expensive idleness and gross debauchery, or to purchase some scoundrel of high social position, foreign or native, for his daughter. Such a man is only the more dangerous if he occasionally does some deed like founding a college or endowing a church, which makes those good people who are also foolish forget his real iniquity. These men are equally careless of the working men, whom they oppress, and of the State, whose existence they imperil. There are not very many of them, but there is a very great number of men who approach more or less closely to the type, and, just in so far as they do so approach, they are curses to the country.

Franklin D. Roosevelt:

Finally, in our progress toward a resumption of work we require two safeguards against a return of the evils of the old order; there must be a strict supervision of all banking and credits and investments; there must be an end to speculation with other people’s money, and there must be provision for an adequate but sound currency.

Barack Obama:

I, I, would say that, er … if you look at … the, the sources of this crisis … the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to . . . a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial system … I think what is also true is that … here in Great Britain … … here in continental Europe … around the world. We were seeing the same mismatch between the regulatory regimes that were in place and er … the highly integrated, er, global capital markets that have emerged … . So at this point, I’m less interested in … identifying blame than fixing the problem. I think we’ve taken some very aggressive steps in the United States to do so, not just responding to the immediate crisis, ensuring banks are adequately capitalized, er, dealing with the enormous, er … drop-off in demand and contraction that has taken place. More importantly, for the long term, making sure that we’ve got a set of, er, er, regulations that are up to the task, er, and that includes, er, a number that will be discussed at this summit. I think there’s a lot of convergence between all the parties involved about the need, for example, to focus not on the legal form that a particular financial product takes or the institution it emerges from, but rather what’s the risk involved, what’s the function of this product and how do we regulate that adequately, much more effective coordination, er, between countries so we can, er, anticipate the risks that are involved there. Dealing with the, er, problem of derivatives markets, making sure we have set up systems, er, that can reduce some of the risks there. So, I actually think … there’s enormous consensus that has emerged in terms of what we need to do now and, er … I’m a great believer in looking forwards than looking backwards.

From the Washington Post:

The Obama administration is engineering its new bailout initiatives in a way that it believes will allow firms benefiting from the programs to avoid restrictions imposed by Congress, including limits on lavish executive pay, according to government officials.

We needed a hero.  We got a ZERO.


Un-Enlightened Obots

April 4, 2009
Obama Bloggers

Obama Bloggers

My post yesterday “What’s so special about Sarah” brought out the trolls like bailout money brings out the CEO’s.  I was struck by the fact that all their criticism of her is based on lies.  This comment is typical:

lauren, on April 4th, 2009 at 11:27 pm Said:

I hate her because she’s murdering wolves from airplanes, and encouraging that behavior…because she’s rabidly anti-choice, and loss of our freedom is terrifying to me.

The wolves are being killed for what’s called “predator control.” It’s part of wildlife management so that the moose and caribou herds flourish. The wolves are hunted from airplanes because that’s the efficient way to do it. The wolves are not killed for sport.

Sarah Palin is pro-life but has never taken a single action as governor to restrict abortion – in fact she just recently appointed a pro-choice woman to the Alaska Supreme Court.

There are plenty of reasons why a liberal or progressive Democrat would not support Sarah Palin – she’s a moderately conservative Republican and opposes gay marriage for instance.  But Obots keep citing lies to justify their “hatred” of her, including the ones about banning books and charging for rape kits.  Are Obots stupid or just stupid liars?

Over at The Daily Howler the incomparable Bob Somerby writes:

Several centuries ago, the western world had its ballyhooed Enlightenment. From now on, facts would rule, we said—facts and their consort, logic. From now on, we’d play by the rules, we all swore! No more saying “X is right” just because it feels so good—or because the king says X is right.

That was the pledge—but that ideal has faded. Enlightenment values lie in tatters, as you can see when you scan your newspapers. (Or when you watch your “progressive” TV shows.) We thought we’d advanced—but that was a dream. Those very lofty Enlightenment values are routinely observed in the breach.

Bob Somerby has been a voice crying in the wilderness since 1998 – back when nobody knew what a “blog” was.  Two years ago he  was required reading for anyone in the blogosphere who considered him or herself a member of the reality-based community.  Then the Kool-aid epidemic started and the proggers lost their minds.  Now they are rapidly turning on old Bob.

Our blogstalkers detest him because he refuses to participate in their delusions.  I won’t link to any of their places because they’re biohazards, but here’s a couple representative samples:

Bob Somerby jumped the shark a few years back.  If he peddled half as much reason or logic as he does sanctimony and mind-reading, he might almost be readable again.


My guess is that after Eric Boehlert gave him a generous mention in Lapdogs, he didn’t receive the kind of recognition he was expecting. He was ignored in favor of TPM, Atrios, and the Kos community, among others.

Bob Somerby didn’t change – they did, when they traded truth for truthiness.  The Obots hate Bob, PUMA and anyone else that insists their emperor has no clothes.  These are the same people that hated Hillary for her AUMF vote and her ties to the DLC – but didn’t hate Joe Biden and Rahm Emmanuel for the same reasons.  They watch Teh Precious betray them on issue after issue and claim he’s playing “11th Dimension Chess” that no one else is capable of understanding.

They drank the Kool-aid and became un-Enlightened, and now they can believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast.


At least he didn’t pat the Queen on the ass and call her “sweetie”

April 3, 2009

I’ve been watching Ma and Pa Kettle Go To London and the laughs have been non-stop.  Not only did the most powerful man in the free world bow and scrape to a filthy rich oil monarch but his wife got overly familiar with the Queen of England.


Yes, these foo paws are minor gaffes and G-Dub was a putz too, but when will we finally get a POTUS that don’t embarrass us?


Pa and Pa Kettle