revenge really is a dish best served cold, ain't it?

I don't think that we ought to get into the position where we say "This is bad work. This is good work." The man who has been governor and had a sterling business career crosses the qualification threshold.

oh, bill, bill, bill.

you timed it perfectly:  tail-end of a hellish week for The One, in which the stock market and economic indicators tanked, his opponent not only clinched his party's nomination but came out swinging at what should've been his administration's teapot dome, and, despite his handlers' best smear efforts, the differences between his own record of public-sector failure and said opponent's "sterling business career" couldn't be more blazingly apparent.

or so i thought, until you opened your mouth on CNN yesterday and put the icing on the cake.

and the beauty part?  later, you can be all, like, "what--what'd i say?"

welcome back, baby--i've missed you.

[i know i said i was gonna stay outta this one, but when something this rich comes along, it's just too irresistible to pass up.]

oh, for christ's sweet sake

for the life of me, i can't remember the last time any elected official, agency or governing body at any level of our government did anything purely for the good of the governed--you know, without there being an ulterior motive in the form of wildly-inefficient wealth redistribution and/or--as is the case with this latest bullshit--a power grab.

consider for a moment:  you're an elected official faced with the fact that two-thirds of the citizens who entrusted you with some measure of their welfare are obese--a national phenomenon that wasn't even a blip on the public radar screen 40 years ago.

in order to "solve" the problem, do you look at what's changed since then, try and weigh the myriad factors which went into its creation--such as the fact that the rise of obesity in this country precisely coincides with the mass introduction by the food industry of (a) addictive, mind-altering excitotoxins in the guise of "flavor enhancers", and (b) a cheap, frankenstein's-monster corn-based sweetener which demonstrably and effectively turns off the "i've had enough" switch in the human body, may be two to three times as fattening as natural sugar, and has replaced said substance in virtually every product on american shelves?  or the fact that, between the two of 'em, the average american trying to maintain a healthy weight by eating in moderation what's offered up to him by the food industry in his country doesn't stand a goddam chance in hell?

or do you merely isolate the most obvious symptom of what is a far deeper problem--overindulgence--and pounce on it as a excuse to clamp your iron fist of benevolence around the throats of your subjects?

well, for the paternalistic billionaire asshole who runs new york and knows what's best for everybody, the choice was a no-brainer.  so from now on, new yorkers, you wanna buy a soda or any other sweetened beverage that's bigger than your mayor deems proper or necessary? well, you're shit outta luck--but all for your own good, of course.

it's not what this guy and all the others just like him across the country at every level of government are trying to do that bothers me so much--hell, power-junkies have existed as long as humans have walked on two legs.  it's the fact that we're collectively lying back, spreading our legs and letting 'em do it that makes me glad i lived the better part of my life back in an america in which individual freedom still sorta mattered, and any politician who even dreamed of such an overreach of power would've been tarred, feathered and run outta town on a rail.

welcome to the new nanny state, america--have a (small) coke and a smile.

three completely unrelated stories

1.   Robert Mugabe asked to be 'UN Leader for Tourism' 

robert mugabe, you ask? i could give you my own little thumbnail sketch of this international statesman, but let's just quote from the story:

[T]he Zimbabwean president, who is widely accused of ethnic cleansing, rigging elections, terrorising opposition, controlling media and presiding over a collapsed economy, has been endorsed as a champion of efforts to boost global holidaymaking.

they forgot to add looting the national treasury in order to enrich himself, his family and his cronies, but i guess they wanted to avoid a run-on sentence.  oh, and this new 'UN Leader for Tourism' is under a travel ban, too.  perfect.


2.  House to Examine Plans to Let United Nations Regulate the Internet

but, gee, they might have some doubts about the wisdom of this idea

At a hearing earlier this month, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) also criticized the proposal. He said China and Russia are "not exactly bastions of Internet freedom."

so i guess there's really nothing to worry about.

well, except, for maybe


3.  Obama Admin Cites 'Int'l Permission,' Not Congress, As 'Legal Basis' For Action In Syria


 

 my favorite passage from the above recent cspan clip:

[Secretary of Defense Leon] Panetta was asked by Senator Jeff Sessions, “We spend our time worrying about the U.N., the Arab League, NATO and too little time, in my opinion, worrying about the elected representatives of the United States. As you go forward, will you consult with the United States Congress?”  

The Defense Secretary responded “You know, our goal would be to seek international permission. And we would come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress.”*

but, really, national sovereignty--who needs it?  i'm quite happy at the prospect of turning over the burdens of self-determination to an august international governing body of such demonstrated wisdom, and being a citizen of this brave new world.  how about you?

________________
*h/t info wars

quotes of this special day

Preventive war was an invention of Hitler. Frankly, I would not even listen to anyone seriously that came and talked about such a thing.  

We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security.  

How far can you go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without?

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

all of the above from five-star general, supreme allied commander, president and prophet dwight d. eisenhower, who probably knew a thing or two more about such matters than all of his enthusiastically warmongering successors put together, and who would no doubt be drummed out of his party today for daring to suggest such views.

ah well, we can't say we weren't warned.

what is the matter with people?

seems that whenever i think that nothing done in the name of artistic self-expression could surprise me anymore, along comes something new.

i have hinted (ok, more than hinted) at my contempt for much of what has been pawned off as "art" over the past hundred or so years, as its most celebrated practitioners discarded the age-old tenets of beauty, virtuosity and elevation of humanity through their collective vision, and embraced something quite different.

all of a sudden, "good" art was no longer beautiful and able to stand on its innate merits--the new art was crude and ugly, and thus had to be explained in order to be understood.  and anyone who saw through the scam promoted by these clever hucksters and their apologists, or merely didn't get the sales pitch--or, god forbid, said something as eminently sensible as "my two-year-old coulda done that"--was immediately dismissed and ridiculed by the intelligentsia as an unwashed philistine.

and thus the public were intimidated into buying the big lie--and, before they knew it, offering up their tax dollars to subsidize the artistic "creation" of such masterpieces as crucifixes in jars of urine.

corollary #1 to the mkf unified theory of the evolution of art:  beauty is hard, but ugly is easy.  so, ugly it is.

corollary #2 to the mkf unified theory of the evolution of art:  if it has to be explained in order to be appreciated, it's probably crap.

all of which is merely a prelude to the subject of today's post--if you think i have strong feelings about such static creations as paintings, sculpture and photographs of sacred objects in jars of artistic piss, you don't even wanna get me started on the subject of that bastard love-child spawned by the modern art movement known as "performance" art.

seriously, what does it say about a civilization when some guy calling himself an artist can chop off his dick and balls, braise 'em up in a pan along with some mushrooms, and serve his creation garnished with a sprig of parsley to a group of art lovers who ponied up $250 a plate

god, i at least hope he was hung

in order to partake of his genius--oh, and have a waitlist of disappointed patrons lined up with checkbooks in hand on the off chance he can manage to grow, chop off and cook another set?

i guess the better question would be, why did this giant of the art world sell himself so short?  because god knows the right gallery coulda gotten him so much more.