Alright, I'm happy to report I'm off to a late start today because of arrangements being made for me to get a financial breather from my friends in the art world. Since I've isolated myself, it takes a while for news about me to get around, but I guess, somehow, it still does. Best reaction, so far?
"You're a top-shelf artist, working as a landscaper?
That doesn't make any sense,…"
They've rarely understood what's happened to me.
Anyway, if it all works out right, I should be O.K. until I get my legs fully underneath me again. Some readers have made it possible for me to keep eating, in the meantime, and I send each of them a heartfelt "Thank you" as well. Now let's skewer something:
Yesterday I did a post about a politician who was being (get ready for it) "disingenuous and absurd.” I didn't mention she was gay because all that mattered to me was A) she was a stupid liar and B) I'd found a new lyrical way to say that.
Just as during Ann's last public meltdown, the fact the stupid liar is gay has become all-important, with Ann applauding the lesbian's lies as playing The Gay Card "for all it's worth". Here's my first so-straight-forward-it-should-end-the-debate question:
How much is Ann saying being gay is "worth" if it's based on lies?
Also, Ann (showing what a fascinatingly twisted and wicked mind she has) excuses gay lies as "exploiting what is exploitable". This jibes *perfectly* with her established outlook in general, and even towards her former readers, who she so callously dismissed over her cock-eyed approach to gay and feminist issues, after calling them "losers", and having taken their money. She's a law professor who doesn't recognize right from wrong.
Which goes hand-in-hand with Glenn Reynolds' statement that a good thing about being a law professor is you can throw things out there and not care of their effect on others. He still links to Ann, his fellow law prof, no matter what she's done or how it affected others, or even if he writes daily of opposing her noxious brand of feminism.
What they're both telling us, publicly, is they have no true character, no sense of ethics:
Ethics, also known as moral philosophy, is a branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. The term comes from the Greek word ethos, which means "character". Ethics is a complement to Aesthetics in the philosophy field of Axiology. In philosophy, ethics studies the moral behavior in humans and how one should act. Ethics may be divided into four major areas of study:
• Meta-ethics, about the theoretical meaning and reference of moral propositions and how their truth values (if any) may be determined;
• Normative ethics, about the practical means of determining a moral course of action;
• Applied ethics, about how moral outcomes can be achieved in specific situations;
• Descriptive ethics, also known as comparative ethics, is the study of people's beliefs about morality;
Ethics seeks to resolve questions dealing with human morality—concepts such as good and evil, right and wrong, virtue and vice, justice and crime.
Ann and Glenn resolve nothing. They are the blogging equivalent of ghetto monsters, pimps or drug dealers, impressing the youngsters with what they have, making the ugly way they get it - which is ultimately harmful to all they come in contact with - appear more attractive than what it is. Or did you, too, think Romney would win like they told you? Think Reynolds cares they told you wrong? Think again. They're merely "exploiting what is exploitable".
My second so-straight-forward-it-should-end-any-debate question:
Is that really what tenured American professors, teaching the youth, were supposed to be about?
If so, I'll tell the pimps and drug dealers they can come out now, because they wouldn't be working in the shadows if the likes of feminist Ann and Libertarian Glenn weren't so adamant they're the ones living wrong,...