Remember When The Republicans Were Complaining What Liberals Mostly Wanted Them To Do Is Shut Up?

The Right should've taken the advice

 This is getting to be waaay funnier than Klavan:

  "REPUBLICANS BLAST NEVADA RANCHER FOR FAILING TO USE COMMONLY ACCEPTED RACIAL CODE WORDS" 

What a potential slave owner looks like - with his flag 

Bundy should've said the conservative's magic words after a racial attack - "playing the victim" - and all would be well today,…

 

If I Killed Small Animals & Was Racist I'd Be Spiritual

Andrew Klavan says religion works, largely as I thought, after all:

  "If you don’t have a sense of evil and unfairness, I don’t think you can preach truly."

See? It's kind of a "birds of a feather" thing,...

 

New Anthem (Based On The Words "Don't Play Around")

 

 OH! I'm DYING over here! I'm laughing so hard it feels like having the hiccups for a year! Remember how I told you Glenn Reynolds & Co. are,...sheltered? This gets to the whole premise of my argument, about how fake the "gay" marriage debate is, because the people conducting it are not (as Jimi Hendrix used to say) "experienced" - I'm from South Central:

“The conversation continued, according to Jeantel: 'So... he told me the man was looking at him, so I had to think it might have been a rapist.' 

Why rapist? A man raping a man? How common is that as a fear?”

That was Ann Althouse showing us how much she has in common with Doris Day - and how little she knows of, for instance, Navy initiation rituals.

 

 I'll bet she knows all the words to "In The Navy" though.

I'll add that my first knowledge of gays was a man trying to blow me, against my will, as a child. What do these people think makes a man like me? Reality - NEXT RUBE:

“I can’t help but feel that the real story, the big story, is that gay people, like black Americans before them, are being played for fools by what Andrew Breitbart used to call the Democrat-media complex. Surely, the all-Supreme-Court headlines should really read something like, 'GDP shrinks to nothing due to the fact that government is overspending on entitlements while simultaneously spying on American citizens and abusing the power of taxation to suppress political speech at the same time the administration is mishandling world events so that the United States has become an impotent laughing stock whose ambassadors can be murdered at will while tyrants thrive…  oh, and by the way, the Supreme Court ruled…  something that will make very little difference to the overall state of the nation.'”

Alright, this is Andrew Klavan - the man who recently announced "there is something spiritual at the bottom of conservatism" - being wrong on so many levels, again, it would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.

("Tragic", because people actually listen to these folks, without actually listening to them - if it's really there, spirituality's at "the bottom" you guys,....)

Then there's the linking of gays and blacks, something I'm really getting sick of, because the analogy doesn't work. (I dislike all of these set-ups designed for conflict between us - listen to Klavan talk about "gay people" but "black Americans". Be a conservative and drop the PC shit, dude, you're confusing yourself,...) All you have to say is "Liberace" and the whole argument falls apart. Was Little Richard mistreated? Not that I know of, but then Little Richard's never been a puss, either. Nobody ever talks about stuff like that because they're scared. How about gays being proud of Judy Garland saying:

“When I die I have visions of fags singing ‘Over the Rainbow’ and the flag at Fire Island being flown at half mast.”

That totally screams of The Civil Rights Movement blacks led, doesn't it? Give me a break. It's about as accurate as Klavan's Supreme Court headline. Here's how I would write it:

“I can’t help but feel that the real story, the big story, is that "spiritual" people are, at the same time, in a ruthless quest for power and being played for fools. Surely, the all-Supreme-Court headlines should really read something like, 'GDP shrinks to nothing due to the fact that everyone's overspending out of fear of shadows on the walls, while simultaneously abusing power to suppress speech at the same time the administration is mishandling world events,…  oh, and by the way, the Supreme Court ruled…  something that - like any Supreme Court ruling - is already changing the overall state of the nation.'”

What a moron. Which brings me to the man with the hat, Pajamas Media's Roger L. Simon, shining a flashlight on part of the problem better than most:

“Don’t do Barack Obama any favors! 

He is on so many ropes you can’t count them. The only thing that can help him is for a bunch of rightwingers to start screaming about the sanctity of marriage. 

Don’t do it! Don’t take the bait! 

Make peace with your gay friends, neighbors, and relatives. They should thrive and be happy. Or be indentured to divorce lawyers for the rest of their lives like so many of us. Whatever happens happens. Move on! 

And for those who say we’re on the slippery slope to polygamy, incest, or whatever, stop it! There’s no concrete evidence for any of this. Gay people — the ones who are getting married anyway — want to be bourgeois like you. We’ve all met tons of gay people but very few (if any) polygamists and not a single person who is sleeping with their mother and/or sister. (Well, maybe in the movie Deliverance and I’m not even sure it really happened there.) 

Look inside yourself and stop making this absurd, straw-man argument for which there is no serious real-life corroboration in the U.S., only in the Islamic world. 

(That means you, Dennis Prager. You’re too smart for that kind of sophism.) 

One thing Obama and his minions thrive on is distraction — and protest of gay marriage will be distraction one, I promise you. 

Play offense, not defense.”

Since Klavan already said what a fool Andrew Breitbart thought I am, let's me take Klavan's boss apart,  in the Andrew Breitbart tradition:

Conservatives are supposed to be upholding a principle and this fool's still fighting the last election. Can there be any doubt why this country is losing, on so many fronts, when people can get so easily distracted? He thinks Obama's "on so many ropes you can’t count them" because he and the rest of the media's hooked on these non-scandals (they lucked upon) that, so far, no matter how often they scream they've got something concrete, have fallen between their fingers like sand.

Get your fucking wits, Rog:

We're not supposed to be trying to "make peace", you coward, but be stewards of this nation which, last time I checked, wasn't thriving or happy.

"Whatever happens happens"?

Then, like Dr. Helen before him, this conservative gets "spiritual" (like Andrew Klavan said he would) and comes with a NewAge admonition - reflecting "the path" they're all on - "Move On!"

Which, as I've explained, we can't do because - unlike you who, once, had to go out and "find yourself" - we've always been stuck here, knowing where we are all along, enduring parents (like you?) making "divorce" part of reality "for the rest of their lives".

That was your doing.

BTW - as I just said - this place the rest of us have been is called "Reality", it's in America, and you and your Romney-supporting friends really ought to visit sometime before shooting off your mouth about it's content and ambitions.

We're not bourgeois. I'm hand-to-mouth, and I'm writing this in physical pain.

Just because you can't think of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist - like seeing conservatism, today, from a different perspective.

Like in science, that's supposed to be the point, ain't it, Oh Great Gatekeepers Of The Right?

Call me when you give a damn about something more than Obama's head on a spit.

I'm one conservative artist who listens,...

One Symptom Is You Found The Name "Mitt" Attractive

"There is something spiritual at the bottom of conservatism,..."

- Andrew Klavan, Pajamas Media

"Our main finding is that people who had a spiritual understanding of life had worse mental health than those with an understanding that was neither religious nor spiritual."

- Professor Michael King, University College London, in the British Journal of Psychiatry

If Ever There Was A Time To Ask "Who Watches The Watchmen?" I Think That Moment Has Finally Arrived

 

 And we can hear you:

Leave it to good ol' Pajamas Media to ask the important question Can a Conservative Be An Atheist? and not ask a conservative atheist, but a religious guy who thinks conservatism is "spiritual". 

 Two points this atheist conservative will make: 

 1) If conservatism is "spiritual", then please stop trying to impress me with the difference between it and liberalism because there is none - you're both a bunch of loonies I can't vote for. 

 2) This explains Mitt Romney's weirdo candidacy - and loss - better than anything I've heard so far. 

 And have you noticed how answers to important questions have to be gleaned from what the idiots say - on other topics? They were never this straight-forward when the burning post-election issue was "Why did Mitt Romney become our candidate?" 

Nobody ever said "Because there's essentially a 'spiritual' component to conservatism that makes us drift to scumbags selling homeopathy who think they'll rule other planets after death." 

This has to come out in a dialogue - supposedly about atheism - by two people who aren't atheists. (They didn't even have the integrity to invite a conservative atheist to join them, so how reliable are their opinions?) 

Whatev. It's all O.K., I guess, being PJ Media: 

 I figured out they were crazy, on my own, a long time ago,...

 

TIP: How To Behave During An Islamic Massacre

"People tend to act according to their beliefs,..." Yeah, if we could only do something about that, like stop indulging ourselves with stupid beliefs - you know, like saying, "Wow, that's a stupid belief and not actual knowledge, so I don't have to pay any attention to it!" Things might improve greatly.

But no, that's too straight forward, too intelligent, and too darned easy for anyone to go for. Better to keep going with killing in the name of God, murdering while performing exorcisms against the Devil, having your child die because your church doesn't allow you to use medicines, or allowing your mother to croak because your water-based healing cure is better than the entire history of Western medicine and the evils of BIG PHARMA. Yes indeed, let's carry on with that stuff instead:

That way, by mentally blocking out their actions, believers of all stripes can continue to feel superior to everybody else.

It's been a winning formula so far.

"A Terrible Voice Came Out Of The Radio,..."

This is actually some powerful shit,...

Andrew Klavan: On The Sesame Street Of Hate

Andrew Klavan Explains The Public Union Farce

If They Didn't Say It For Bush It Doesn't Count II

Only Your Friends Will Tell You: Pajamas Media

To say TMR has a love/hate relationship with Pajamas Media would be an understatement (as our frequent comments about Glenn Reynolds' Instapundit make clear - more on that in a minute). But, by far, the strongest voice in their conservative empire is Bill Whittle (above) with his scorecard for the first half of President Obama's time in office being a(nother) fine example why they matter so much to us.

On the other hand, it seems that no matter what they do, they always have a tendency for screwing it up - a charge we're sure Professor Reynolds would throw back at us in a heartbeat - and the video, above, is a perfect example of what we mean:

Hey, folks, what the hell happened to Afterburner?



Whittle's work is still outstanding, but that dramatic 21st century opening to Bill Whittle's commentary - which closed with a single arresting fading synth tone - was perfection for what he does. So why the name change (to Firewall) and those cheesy-looking flame thrower graphics?

They did the same thing (minus the name change) to Andrew Klavan's Klaven On The Culture. Here's the old opening, with the program's multi-televisioned theme, which was brilliant:



And here's the new idea - featuring Klavan's signature - which is boring and, basically, sucks:



Why, guys? Don't you realize, like any painter would, that when you get something right you're supposed to stop painting? Do you see 60 Minutes (which these two PJTV segments remind us of) abandoning the stop watch?

And - if you're going to tinker with anything - why can't you get the boss, Roger L. Simon, to get rid of that damned hat? Aren't you all in this together? What's the matter with you?

And what happened to Alfonzo Rachel (AKA Zo/Macho Sauce)? He started off as smart, street, funny, angry, content-laden and ultraconservative, only to go to PJTV and become this:



The Rolling Stones? Are you kidding? There go the majority of black viewers. And his stuff has never really recovered.

Speaking of black viewers, we have no problem - yet - with either:

Sonja Schmidt,...

...or Joe Hicks' segments, though we miss "The Hicks File", which seems to have been replaced by the "Minority Report". Can't PJTV just have two winning segments by Joe?

The segments that aren't working are Trifecta (boring) Kruiser Control (not funny) Ed Driscoll (too funny looking and with a bizarre speaking voice) and yes, our ol' pal, Mr. Deer-In-The-Headlights himself, Glenn Reynolds (told you we'd get there - read on:)

Believe it or not, we love Glenn Reynolds. We think Instapundit provides an invaluable public service and deserves to be the catalyst/gathering spot for the Tea Party Movement that it is. As we've said many times, we've been honored when he's linked to our pieces, and been awed by the power he welds online. But,...but,...but,..

Awww, for once, no "buts" - like Pajamas Media itself, we find Reynolds frustrating because he's so good. Not always to our taste, but still damned good.

May he, and everyone at Pajamas Media, carry on for a long, long time.

The Truth's Finally Out: Nothing's What It Seems

Andrew Klavan Asks Is America Satanophobic?

As far as we know, it's only the hardcore gays who do the serious Satanic thing, so we don't have an answer for you on this one,...

Libs: We Know What We Are But What Are You?

How Do Our Conspiracy Theories Begin?

First we're told to read stuff like this:

Today's most prominent New Thought teachers deliver their sermons from the couches of television talk shows rather than pulpits; their books are more likely to be shelved under "Business" and "Self-Help" in bookstores than in "Religion." Stephen Covey's highly effective business executives are direct descendants of the constitutionally "healthy-minded" Victorians that William James marveled at one hundred years ago.

Wayne Dyer's "Power of Intention," the ordained Unity minister Marianne Williamson's "A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of A Course in Miracles," Deepak Chopra's many books on quantum healing and spiritual affluence, Gary Zukav's recondite explorations of quantum physics and practical exercises for "soul empowerment," Jerry and Esther Hicks' "Ask and It is Given" (the channeled wisdom of a spiritual entity named Abraham who reveals how you can become "vibrationally aligned" with your desires), not to mention the tapes, infomercials, and packed lectures by the motivational guru Tony Robbins and the first "New Thought" film "What the Bleep Do We Know?" about the invisible organization of energy-all offer variations on ideas that were first proclaimed by Quimby, Warren Felt Evans, the Dressers, Emma Curtis Hopkins, and Mary Baker Eddy more than a century ago.

Clearly New Thought spawned an effective practical psychology-millions of Americans recite daily affirmations to encourage their positivity while they struggle up the career ladder and through the vagaries of toxic relationships. 12-Step programs have empowered countless addicts to reclaim their lives; support groups help the chronically ill maintain hope and according to some studies actually improve their longevity. And innumerable informal groups gather together to learn how to access Universal Spirit in order to "manifest" more good in their lives.

Only to have it followed by stuff like this:

It has been said, rightly I think, that human desire always looks beyond present enjoyments to an absent good. The minute we find ourselves contented by something, we set out afresh on work in the pursuit of happiness. What then is to be made of the recent claim from architects that something as seemingly fleeting and elusive as happiness can be ‘designed in’?

Happiness is the latest Big Idea amongst policymakers and social scientists.  And given architects now justify design almost entirely in terms of delivering social policy, it was probably only a matter of time before attentions turned to shaping our feelings.

The popularity of designing happiness indicates the extent designers have returned to previously discredited ideas of environmental determinism. In recent decades we’ve become used to neighbourhoods designed to control criminal and anti social behaviour, ideas recently extended to include shaping how communities feel – for example safe and secure. Health and well-being are also seen as fair game. The popularity of the “nudge” approach of behavioural psychologists is evident in the “choice architecture” planners require in neighbourhoods to encourage the right – healthy – choice of foods.  Seen in this light, it’s a small step to using design to “optimise” emotions and improve happiness.

What’s striking about the happiness movement is their desperately low opinion of the public, who seem to figure as little more than passive objects in need of designers to pep up their positive thinking or shape their “wise living”.  Despite the claim of following in the tradition of the Enlightenment, it’s clear today’s happy clappy architects reject Enlightenment values of autonomy.

In the 18th century, the active pursuit of happiness represented part of a human awakening. The notable thing about today’s happiness brigade is their degraded view of humanity, for example seeing human society as prisoners of its biology. The RSA, (who ironically promote a “21st century Enlightenment”), argue that our “hunter gatherer” brains haven’t always adapted to abundance in modern society, a problem, they say, that retards our decision making capacity, and makes us obese, or lonely.  The evolutionary biologist Bjorn Grinde thinks we’re ‘stone age creatures living in a jet age zoo’.

So where does this leave designers? Given the interest in designing environmental cues to shape the happiness of those in the zoo, it‘s little surprise that the collaborations designers seem most excited about just now are with neuroscientists.  Yet for all the claims that this puts design on a scientific footing (and architects are never happier than when “evidencing” their design), what shines through is a miserable combination of the mystical and the authoritarian.

Not only have some architects become hostile to medical science (one favours designing hospitals as ‘architectural placebo effects’) but in line with environmentalist fads, discredited ideas of “nature therapy” have become popular. From parks as “natural health services” to the therapeutic value accorded to views of nature out of hospital windows, ideas are flourishing which have their roots in that dark historical period when homeopathy and hydrotherapy were closely aligned with biological notions of superiority.

So that's how we make these connections. Are they connected? Of course, they are.

As The Los Angeles Times said:

We respect the right of some people to hold nonsensical views like that.

Just not a whole hell of a lot: