The Bitch Bubble

October 25, 2012

Nearly everything American women say in public to and about themselves is self-aggrandizing, narcissistic bullshit. That’s been true for 50 years, but something has changed lately.

American women have gone from claiming they’re generally better and more enlightened than men to asserting they get more done, get paid more and they like one night stands more. They’ve gone from self-serving to delusional.

This morning, I saw yet another story on Good Morning America or Today about whether it’s worth it to get a college degree anymore. Every time the mainstream media does this story, they come back with a resounding, in-the-tank-for-the-educational-establishment Yes! But this time, not quite so much. The victim of the day was a dumb chick who majored in French and was now working in “customer service.” She thought she’d get a free ride as a UN translator. When interviewed in her cubicle, she remained plucky and unbowed, sure that being a French translator at the UN would come roaring back. The expert on the segment mildly suggested that she might want to try to get a job at a company that has offices in France. This had never occurred to this dumb bitch, who obviously thought she was going to be Le Marlo Thomas and live in New York the rest of her life on a boondoggle UN salary.

I bring this up because this is one example of stupid loser women being touted as winners in cover stories every damn month in article after article in The Atlantic and other middle-brow magazines that cater to the vanity of females. In truth, these women are shallow semi-articulate idiots who’ve wasted their early 20’s learning to parrot polysyllables without actually being able to do much except put out or otherwise service customers for near minimum wage.

Women are not winning in this culture. There are more dumb broads than men in college now because colleges have learned that women are easier marks for nonsensical loans and majors. Women are racking up more college debt they’ll never pay back, and are, a few years out of college, desperately looking for husbands who will assume that debt. They are lazily and vaguely hoping to get jobs in dying institutions that can pay big only in prosperous times–government, non-profits, teaching. They are oblivious to the fact that they look for jobs from such institutions exactly like rich wives look to their husbands to bankroll boutiques.

In STEM degrees and fields, women are ridiculously underrepresented. Emphasis on “ridiculously.”  I work in a STEM field and less than 10% of the technical work is done by women and less than 1% of the excellent work is done by them. It’s been 50 years since Women’s Lib–how dare women do so little of even the metaphorical heavy lifting at work, much less the real heavy lifting?

Either women can’t compete with men or refuse to. There’s no glass ceiling blocking them, it’s their fantasy of glass slippers. Educating women is a huge waste of resources–the typical man gives back far more to the economy, whether educated or not than the typical French/Womens Studies/Sustainability female major. In fact, the more debt a woman racks up in college, the less likely she is to contribute and pay it off, since the more likely it is she will need a man to pay it off for her. She drops out of the work force and focuses on trading blowjobs to her husband for monthly student loan payments.

Female arrogance in America has reached the kind of irrational pitch and feverish salesmanship that is associated with all bubbles.

I bitch a lot about how nearly all commercials portray men as incompetent shlubs needing to be scolded and nagged by their longsuffering wives. OK, women are the target audience  of most commercials, so shouldn’t commercials cater to women? Let’s assume that commercials accurately appeal to women. Do most women like seeing themselves portrayed as matriarchal condescending cunts? Because, in most commercials, women are horrible, bitchy, passive aggressive shrews.

Yeah, actually, I think commercials do appeal to the typical American Woman psyche. American women seek that ideal.

The bubble’s about to burst, bitches.


God Help America

October 21, 2012

There’s an ABC show called “What Would You Do?” that I occasionally watch with sick fascination when I’m in the mood for feeling despair about the state of our culture.

The show is similar to “Candid Camera” but instead of setting up embarrasing situations tries to mess with people by setting up moral dilemmas for them.

My despair is not because of the ordinary people who fail the moral tests, but because of those who pass them. The show’s version of the right thing to do is frequently appalling.

Here’s a particularly egregious example:

A woman with two middle school kids is planted in a grocery store. She induces one of her kids to clumsily steal a wallet out of a purse in a grocery cart in front of other shoppers. The shoppers initially rat the brat out. When the female Fagin denies possession of the wallet, the faux victim has a hissy fit and stalks off to get the manager. Here’s where it gets interesting.

The second the victim is out of sight, Bad Mom starts claiming victimhood, saying she’s hungry and just couldn’t think of another way to get food for her brood. Without exception, the shoppers melt and “help.” Not a single one even mentions how horrible it is for a parent to actively teach her kids to steal. Not one person does one goddamn thing to help those kids.

This is not a Jean Valjean situation. Bad Mom is attractive, wearing nice clothes and obviously nowhere near desperation or starvation. And Jean Valjean wouldn’t have chickened out and pimped out his kids.

Now, I know it’s possible that they didn’t show people who reacted differently. According to a crawl on the screen, nobody did. To be fair, and to make sure that I’m not cherry picking, I’m going to objectively summarize what was shown:

  • Vignette #1: After the victim stalks off to find the manager, Bad Mom says “Look, I’m hungry” to the shopper who busted her. Voice over: “And with those simple words, all is forgiven.” Shopper says “You know what, just put it…give it to me and go, take your kids.”  (emphasis added, I mean what the fuck, what the fucking fuck!). Shopper interview afterward: “I understood, maybe it was wrong for me to tell her to go, but I just felt like if I did that both people kind of sort of win.” (both people? what about the kids, you stupid bitch? Oh, and she’s holding a baby while being interviewed.)
  • Vignette #2: “We’re just hungry. We’re just hungry. I need to feed my kids.” Shopper #2 pays her $20 to give back the wallet and “Just go.” Post-interview, the host says, “…but she was teaching her kids how to steal.” Response: “I didn’t think about that. I looked at the kids and I thought of these times and what’s going on in the world. In my own heart I know I did the right thing…but now I want my twenty dollars back!” (fucking Obama voter).
  • Vignette #3: Shopper is pretty aggressive when she sees the theft, confronting Bad Mom and her brats. After victim stalks off, “Just put it somewhere where no one can see it. Put it in the meat.”  “We’re so hungry.” Voice over: “and then [shopper] does something extraordinary.” “I’ll buy your groceries, come on.” Hug. “It’s ok, just go shop, go get a cart and get what you need. Have fun, get things you want!” “Really?” “Yeah, really!” (really? I mean, fucking really?) Then the stupid shopper starts telling Bad Mom how to get government cheese. “Go to Rockland Count Social Services, call them.” Then blah blah the economy, you’re hardly alone, sympathy, I’d vomit if I typed it. Trying to keep it down, I am, but I need to type this because it matters for the next botched moral abortion, the post-interview ends with this: “I’m just trying to help her get help, yeah. To help herself.”
  • Vignette #4: Leslie Geary (sp?–didn’t find her on google), a former TV reporter. I list her name only because she should be arrested as an accomplice. Bad Mom, after victim stalks off, on j’accuse: “Do I look like I need to steal a wallet?” Then “Please don’t tell.”  “Why did you do that? Do you need help? I have dedicated my life to try to help. I get it…” “Help me how?” “I don’t know. You seem like a really nice woman.” (and a card carrying member of the Sisterhood of the Traveling Shoplifting Thieving Cunts Who Pimp Out their Kids). After that, they bond and exchange phone numbers and you can almost hear Elton John and Dionne Warwick singing in the background. Seriously, if I typed it, not only would I vomit but my eyes would bleed. Why do I say Leslie Geary (sp) is an accomplice? She didn’t even try to get the wallet back to the victim. Post-interview was just as inane and amoral as everything else she said. The screen crawl wraps it all up: No one called the police on the pickpockets.
  • Written onscreen tag for the segment: At the end of the day, while everyone knew that stealing the wallet was wrong, most were willing to bend the rules, some even reached into their own pockets and hearts to help a family in need.

Not one of these stupid shopping bitches even noticed, much less helped, the kids. John Quinones, the ABC host, pro forma, asked once about the effect on the kids, and didn’t follow up. That makes him worse. Seriously what a horrible little amoral bitch he is.

Anyone who says “get help” should be punched in the face. That’s Liberal dog whistle code for excusing and abetting evil. A mom in America who teaches her kids to steal is evil. A person or corporation in America who feels sympathy for her, instead of outrage and a burning desire to protect her kids from her, has no working moral compass.

UPDATE 2016: The What Would You Do show on ABC is even more appalling and anti-moral, not just amoral. I am very proud of this post and stand behind every c-word.


Why I am not an anarchist

October 21, 2012

I have two brothers who are mostly living off the grid. I could, probably should, blame myself for this, since I acted this way in my 20’s. Except I was never their hero and I’d knocked off doing this stuff for 20 years before they started. I’m starting to suspect there’s a genetic issue, and I just phenotyped early, thank God. If so, they will get over it too.

I had a book-challenge with one of them earlier this year. I sent him Hayek and he challenged me to read some anarchist guy in Canada. I don’t remember who. I’m not trying to be snarky, but my wife packs up stuff, and “anarchist author canada” didn’t find him. I believe there were a bunch of B’s in his name.

Anyhow, here’s everything I’ve concluded over my entire life about political economy, the good parts version.

There are only two approaches to dealing with other people when it comes to deciding whether you should impose your will on them: libertarian or totalitarian.

Both of these approaches are mere tendencies. You can’t tell which one people really believe from what they claim to believe. But it’s really important to your life to categorize people as one or the other.

Libertarians believe that unless there’s a really really good reason, you have no right to interfere with what other people decide to do, no matter how stupid and destructive it is.

Totalitarians believe that unless there’s a really, really good reason, you should interfere with other people when they are being stupid and destructive.

Moving on, why Anarchy is Idiocy:

Being good at violence is an economic good, just like being good at making bread. The thing that makes civilization possible is that different people are better at some things, and everyone does what they do best to make the sum total of what we can do work more efficiently than if we all tried to be good enough at everything we need and do everything on our own. If we didn’t need each other, there’d be no civilization.

Most people are no good at violence, just as most people are no good at baking bread. The division of labor implies that bakers will pay those good at violence for protecting them from people who are also good at violence who want to take their bread without giving value in return.

That’s how government starts. People who are good at other stuff, but not at violence, pay the good-at-violence to keep them from getting raped and robbed.

Violence, as a business, is different from other businesses. In other businesses, competition rules. Unless you resort to violence to remove your competition, in which case, you are now in the violence business.

In violence, if you don’t have a monopoly, you’re nothing. You must have sovereignty over a territory. The business of violence, as exemplified in gang wars, the Mafia, and governments is all about nobody else but you dares to exercise violence on your turf. Violence is about monopoly. If you don’t get a monopoly, you turn into the Middle East.

The business of violence is different from other businesses. The violence business only works if you have a monopoly. And then the business is subject to all the bad things that happen to monopolies. Laziness, excess, hubris, corruption.

This is the world we live in:

Specialization of labor inevitably leads to most of us paying others who are better at violence to protect us from predation. Because we know how dangerous such people are, we inevitably hedge them in with rules, contracts and management that evolves into government. Like all businesses, government inevitably tries to grow and get more customers, thus the situation we find ourselves in today.

Anarchists talk about “privatizing” government’s function of protecting the peaceful against the violent. As if you’d want people to open up new protection services like they open up new bakeries. When you have competing protection agencies in a single territory, that’s not competition, that’s war. Even the Mafia and street gangs understand that, but anarchists remain oblivious.

The “privatized” version of government anarchists favor will always turn into de facto, and if you’re lucky, de jure monarchy, autocracy or dictatorship because of the business need for a government to have territorial exclusivity. Democracy may be subject to degeneration over time, but it provides external oversight and control of government agents. And the possibility of reigning in government without having to exercise overwhelming violence against the violence experts.

I’d rather try to vote out Obama than overthrow Assad or Putin.

I finally get it

October 21, 2012

I had an epiphany the other day. I finally understand what is wrong with American liberals.

I’ve been trying to figure this out for a long time.

A good friend of mine says it’s because they are ruled by their emotions.

For the last year, I’ve surmised it was because they never understood basic economics, like teenage brats who don’t understand how their cell phone bill gets paid. As I’ve tested that theory, I’ve found it wanting. Barack Obama gets basic economics when it come to trying to make gas prices go through the roof so green energy innovation will bloom. Liberals get economics when they are trying to leverage it for sabotage.

What’s wrong with Liberals in Amercia is that they FEEL (shout-out to my friend) that there is something deeply, urgently wrong with this country and their neighbors that requires deep, urgent government action to remedy. They are very alienated from American mainstream people and culture.

Guess who else shares this fundamental  trait of American Liberal psychology? Ron Paul supporters. They are the flip side of the coin: the government is always the problem instead of always the solution. But the song of alienation remains the same.

If this were Syria, Liberals and Ron Paul Libertarians might have a point about American society needing to be fundamentally transformed. But this ain’t Syria, you assholes.

Rush Limbaugh calls some stupid over-privileged 30-something perpetually-adolescent Ivy League refugee from reality a slut because she wants us to buy her birth control so she can pay a little bit on her student loans which she’s obviously squandered or she’d have graduated nearly a decade ago. Liberals act like he’d cut off her clit.

Some state raises sales taxes .25 percent. Libertarians act like they’re being herded into ovens.

There’s no sense of proportion in these people. And I should know because I used to be one of them.

I was raised in a John Birch Society household. From an early age, I knew my parents’ beliefs were bullshit, but I wasn’t sophisticated enough to discern the underlying alienated rage that created them. I was smart enough to see through their beliefs, but not smart enough to reject the underlying way of looking at the world, in which I swam.

I became a hard-core left libertarian, championing atheism, was an iconoclast against religion, in favor of blanket drug legalization, and an esalen/est/Perls/Fromm humanistic psychology fan in favor of spiking the system at every turn. Though the statute of limitations has long passed for most of my minor-league attention-seeking depredations, I’m not going to list them, though I sometimes am both nostalgic for them and amazed I still have all my fingers.

My fellow travelers and I used to spend long hours rationalizing why we were still entitled to mail letters and drive on roads even though we hated everything the government did.

The truth is, wherever human beings live together, there will be coercion and conflict, governmental, social and familial. In Western civilization, compared to every other, there’s damned little of it. Unless you’re a complete, resentful idiot screaming in rage at the system, you can navigate it. And, unlike Syria, it’s better here to work things out with other people than to leave.

So, how do you fix an American Liberal? Or a Libertarian Party member? You have to get them over their alienation from people right next to tham that they think are their manichean enemies. That doesn’t necessarily take time, but it does take experiences.

Before you start saying, Holy Crap, HLET has been infected with a deadly strain of Kumbaya! …

Yeah, I actually do think we could teach the whole world to sing in perfect harmony, given the right circumstances and enough hugs. But we’re here, now, and kindness can only be exercised safely with a very limited number of people. Ambassador Stevens was all over trying to Kumbaya Libya and it cost him his life. Perhaps, actually likely, he’d say it was worth it.

I’m not near that selfless. I’d say Stevens tried to pet near-the-end Old Yeller and what the hell do you expect from doing that?

I’m also saying it’s a mistake to think that most of our neighbors who are going to vote for Obama again are Old Yeller. Some of them are–they really are. They’d strap on a suicide vest if they hadn’t been neutered by their Ivy League educations into not being able to check their tire pressure. But most of them have just swum in this all their lives. Notice how fish don’t bump much into aquarium walls?

I’m starting to think about political persuasion as being similar to raising children.




A lot has been going on….

October 9, 2012

President Romney bounced ex-President Toonces around in the debate like the Hulk interrupting Loki.  (If you’re new around here, I call Obama Toonces after the SNL cat who thought he could drive a car–I’d rather have the Republicans drive us into a ditch than Toonces drive us off a cliff).

Unemployment is down to 7.8% because so many people have just given up. Jack Welch even called bullshit on that stat. It’s a bad sign for crony capitalism when your biggest crony defects.

We learn that the State Department pulled the plug on security for our ambassador in Libya a month before he was killed after he sent a memo to the Hilary-crats saying, Hey! assholes! You trying to get me killed here? Before everyone starts slamming the legacy media, I did learn this from Good Morning America this morning.

The Toonces administration has sent threatening letters to defense contractors telling them they better not comply with the law about informing workers 60 days before impending mass layoffs due to sequestration. And Democratic operatives are on all the Sunday shows saying, that’s fine, because everyone knows we weren’t serious about sequestration anyway. We make up the law after the election. Of all Toonces pissing on the rule of law, this is the worst because it is the most gobsmackingly ex post facto transparent. They expect to get away with this bullshit and they will.

I got unfriended on Facebook for calling someone a “useful idiot.” No, that’s not quite right. He’s used to me insulting him. I followed up by explaining what the term means and insulting his useful idiot friends. I heard about my shunning from someone else, because I didn’t know I’d been unfriended because I have so many friends I can’t keep track of them.

I’m going to try hard to get unfriended from now on. Most people would say, I’ve been trying pretty hard already. Well, I’m going to step it up. Liberal idiots aren’t just people who don’t get it, they are people who are directly responsible for picking my pocket to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars over the last several years. If they don’t like me calling them useful idiots, they can go fuck themselves and then pay me back. I bet they’d be pissed if I pilfered $20 out of their purses at a party at their house. Klepto idiots. They think I don’t notice how their rancid stupidity is ruining me? This isn’t just politics, it’s war.

Most of the time, politics, like religion, is a subject that you avoid in genteel company. Now and then, this stuff matters.This is one of those times. The Democrats are going to lose because they are betting on religion, the new religions: abortion-ism, gay-irightion, brown-ianism, race-bait-uration. This election is about politics and economics, not about religion. It’s about please-let-me-keep-my-job-ism and gas-prices-really?

Gloves are off. I can’t wait to get rid of most of my facebook “friends.” It’ll be like this blog, but with fewer fuck words.