Category Archive: Perennial Indignancy Watch

Once again proving that Bernie Sanders has the economic understanding of a shellfish

So this was on Facebook today.

Yeah, sure, Bernie.  I’ll bet the IRS would be surprised to learn that.

This wealthy induhvidual [sic] who likes to play up his common-man progressive credentials hasn’t got the brains to pour pee out of a boot with instructions printed on the heel.

Major American corporations — the ones that really bring in the dough hand over fist — pay plenty in taxes.  The difference between them paying taxes and me or you paying taxes is that they build their taxes into their pricing structure.  Every time you buy a newspaper, or a candy bar, or a fancy meal, or a car, or a house — you’re helping the corporation(s) that brought you those products pay their taxes.

And every time some dumb son-of-a-bitch like Bernie Sanders succeeds in making them pay more of “their fair share”, prices go up on all those products for the people who are least able to afford the increase.  Multi-billion dollar oil companies, wanna stick ’em with windfall profit taxes?  Price of gas goes up and it gets harder for people to go to work.  Big soda-pop company, wanna stick ’em with a sugar tax?  The price of a soda goes up and people lose their jobs when sales volume falls off.  And it’s not just taxes — want to force big companies to pay $15/hr minimum wage?  Prices go up and people lose jobs suddenly made too expensive for companies to provide.

Bernie’s right about one thing:  America’s not broke.

But he’s damn wrong about who is and isn’t paying their taxes.

Hey Bernie — how can you afford those three homes you have?  Maybe we should take a look at YOUR tax returns.

Another meme, another blind misunderstanding

My niece posted this on Facebook:

Uh-huh.  Let’s see about that.

Actually, the “wall” between church and state is not what people think it is.  It’s based on a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a church, and the text of that letter is usually misinterpreted to mean religion and the state should be completely separate and have no influence on each other.  Which is impossible in real life.  Anyway, see Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists.  Read it carefully.  It doesn’t mean what most people think it does.

Same-sex marriage is the law of the land now, so that’s over with — not that it’s that big of a deal since the population affected is tiny; they simply scream and holler well over their weight class until people get tired of listening and another barrier is lowered.  However, the backlash is starting to cause something I have wanted to see for years — several states writing legislation to significantly reduce state control of marriage, which would in effect nullify the Supreme Court ruling regarding same sex marriage without outlawing it.  Indiana has a bill before the legislature right now to that effect.  So I’m all for anything that does that.  Why should anyone have to buy a license from the state in order to get married?*

Stem cell research goes on regardless of whether it’s funded federally or not.  The key is not the research itself, it’s whether federal money should be spent to further it.  And there have been compromises over the years to allow some federal funding.  I’m all for stem cell research as long as it’s done properly — there are some major breakthroughs coming in therapy because of stem cells.  But the original argument over the use of stem cells was that only embryonic stem cells would work, because only they are “pluripotent”, which goes back to the abortion argument.  After a lot of smoke and fire, it was discovered that adult stem cells can also be induced to be pluripotent.**  So there’s likely no pressing need to use embryonic stem cells in any case, which should mean properly-done stem cell research should bother exactly no one other than extreme Luddites.

Abortion, on the other hand, is murder in a lot of peoples’ opinion — and that’s hardly a religious question, unless you think you can only be moral if you are religious. And a “safe abortion” is a contradiction in terms anyway.  But it’s ALSO the law of the land, regardless of how you feel about the outcome of Roe v Wade.  My argument has long been that abortion needs to be removed from politics, because eventually the “Roe Effect” will take hold and it won’t be an issue anymore.***

TL;DR version:  I wish people would think about these things before they just generalize about them.  I’ve been thinking about them for over forty years, and a Facebook meme isn’t going to change my mind about any of them.

______________________

* Of course, if people don’t vaccinate their kids, rubella is going to come back, and then the state will once again have a pressing interest in whether or not the potential mother is rubella-free.  But I’m sure that can be handled some other way.  Like by a family doctor testing her before or right after she gets pregnant.  (Before 1987, women had to have proof that they were rubella free before they could get married in Indiana.  In point of fact, even though this portion of the code was repealed in 1987, my wife still had to have a rubella test in 2000 before our county would give us the license.  Interesting.)

Also interesting is the fact that the bill in question in Indiana still prohibits polygamy.  Which is fine with me.

** I’m not going to go into this in depth, but the NIH says, “Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent—that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent—restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult stem cells are thought to be. However, a newer type of reprogrammed adult cells, called induced pluripotent stem cells, has proven to be pluripotent.”  NIH FAQ regarding stem cells, research question #2, accessed 1/24/2017; bold emphasis mine.

*** For those who can’t reach the linked 2005 WSJ article by James Taranto,

The Roe effect, however, refers specifically to the nexus between the practice of abortion and the politics of abortion. It seems self-evident that pro-choice women are more likely to have abortions than pro-life ones, and common sense suggests that children tend to gravitate toward their parents’ values. This would seem to ensure that Americans born after Roe v. Wade have a greater propensity to vote for the pro-life party–that is, Republican–than they otherwise would have.

In my opinion, there’s more to the Roe Effect than whether or not a child is aborted or allowed to come to term and be born; it also depends on the consequences of education for that child.  A child can be born into a family that considers abortion to be murder, and through indoctrination in our public schools, come to the conclusion that a fetus isn’t human and can therefore be safely disposed of.  Such families also generally believe that sex should be confined to marriage and that it is a sin to have intimate relations before marriage.  Young girls from such families who find themselves fallen pregnant (a interesting term) typically believe that their best option to avoid punishment or disapprobation from their parents is to get an abortion, even though abortion is far worse than simply accepting fate and keeping the baby or giving it up for adoption — which have more consequences in and of themselves.  Perhaps the true solution is to stop telling children that premarital sex is a sin and will be punished by $DEITY, and tell them instead that sex is indeed a wonderful thing, a sacred mystery if you will, but it can lead to bad consequences for young girls who engage in it — and make it clear that even if a daughter finds herself pregnant, she’ll still be loved and accepted and everything that can be done to support her will be done.  Because I’ll bet you more girls run away from home to find an abortion when they find out they’re pregnant whose parents go all fire and brimstone on them about premarital sex than those whose parents are proactive and supportive even if the worst happens.

Comment on Facebook

Boycott, shmoycott.

The 68 or so ‘critters who are “boycotting” the Inaugural are, I suppose, entitled to suddenly find they have something else to do that night — wax the dog, shampoo the cat, make a drug buy, whatever.

But I remember something from my American Diplomatic History classes in college, which were (the way the professor taught) sort of an advanced Civics class on steroids. Not quite Heinlein’s History and Moral Philosophy, but elements thereof.

The prof said that our tradition is that the outgoing President always attends the inauguration of his successor — even if he has to be dragged there kicking and screaming.  Apparently the Secret Service (and their predecessors in that job) see to that.  The story was that Truman absolutely did not want to attend Eisenhower’s inaugural — he and Ike didn’t get along very well — but he manned up (as Truman always did) and soldiered on.*  And I can imagine Hoover probably would have happily given FDR’s first inaugural a miss.  Can you imagine Johnson and Nixon?  Ditto Obama with Trump.  But it just isn’t done.  Why can’t the wayward congresscritters man (or woman) up and do the same?

The prof also said that no foreign dignitaries are invited to join the official party or to attend the major ceremonies.  This is OUR time.  We owe our independence, wealth, and power to nobody but ourselves. Contrary to a soon-to-be former president’s pronouncement, we DID build this.

Politics aside, when we get done fighting our quadrennial intramurals and actually elect a new president (or re-elect the incumbent**), the nation is supposed to come together, put that all behind us, and acclaim the new president.  None of this “he’s not MY president” shite — at least not until he turns out to be, well, Obama, who was, for at least his second term, hardly representative of anyone right of center’s idea of the direction the country should be taking.

By and large, though, in 2009, the right was willing to give Obama a chance.  He blew that chance, of course, as many of us figured he would, and his lock on Congress with it (which really should have told him something), and then he simply played a six-year game of “I won” and “I have a pen and a phone” to avoid working with Republicans.  At that point, no, he wasn’t my president.  The question, of course, is whether he was anyone’s president after the 2010 midterms.

But the time for divisive politics is over.  Donald Trump says he wants us to unite.  He wants this to be a country we are all a part of and can be proud of.  To him, the things that unite us are stronger than the things that divide us.**  In truth, it has always been thus, if we are willing to admit it.

The ‘critters who are boycotting the inaugural are, in that tradition, almost committing an indiscretion beyond the pale. They believe in division and are being divisive.  They believe they can force failure on Donald Trump by turning their backs on him and declaring him illegitimate.  And yet…they do not have majorities in Congress, they are losing governors’ mansions and state legislatures left and right, and they control only small slivers and bits of America.  This attitude on their part seems destined to lead to more failure on their part, not failure on Donald Trump’s part, because Trump is not obliged to seek compromise with them.  (I think he will, because that is his nature, but I certainly think they’ve burned most of their bridges with him at this point.)

But let’s think about this for a moment.  According to official results of the 2016 election, 136,628,459 Americans voted for president.  That’s a lot of voters, about 7 million more thain in 2012.  Yet, “[e]stimates show more than 58 percent of eligible voters went to the polls during the 2016 election”.  Folks, that means that 42 percent didn’t think this election was important enough to cast a vote.  That means about 98,937,850 voters went completely untapped for one reason or another.

I don’t know about you, but I suspect that if Trump had spent more money on GOTV efforts in the last couple of months of the campaign, he might have picked up enough votes to landslide Hillary.  They were only separated by a couple of million votes.

Of course, that’s entirely meaningless, since we’re not a democracy — we’re a federal republic, and we have an Electoral College that expresses the democratic will of the states as to who will be the leader of the federal republic.  The states vote in the Electoral College based on whatever manner they have each provided to choose their electors.  In all 50 states that happens to be by holding an election and either handing the winner all of their electors or dividing them up in some way that has been determined by the state legislature.  They could as easily choose them by reading a horoscope or taking the augurs, or by having the elector candidates play Russian roulette.****  But all of the states, one way or another, have chosen to give the people a voice by letting electors be chosen based on a democratic election within the state.*****

The Electoral College is part of the Constitution, and has been from day one, and it’s how we have run our federal elections for president since 1789.  It’s hardly the first time the Electoral College winner hasn’t won the total popular vote, either — but again, that’s completely irrelevant.

And that’s why claims that Trump’s presidency is illegitimate fall flat, and the bad attitude on the part of the 68-odd Democrat congresscritters who’ve found something better to do with their day tomorrow don’t look like they are standing up for principle at all.

They just look like sore losers.  And they are.

__________________

* As I recall the story, Bess and Mamie hit it off famously when the two couples met for the obligatory coffee at the White House before heading up Pennsylvania Avenue, and that was part of what thawed Truman out.

** Or, in Obama’s case, the incompetent.

*** Hmm.  Where have I heard that before? (If you’re not a Scottish Rite Mason in the NMJ, you probably won’t know.)

**** Say…

***** I think they should be chosen by the legislatures.  But I think senators ought to be chosen that way, too, the way God and the Framers intended, and not the way the ridiculous 17th Amendment changed things in 1913.

Comment on Facebook

“Hillary is not even trying anymore.”

Kurt Schlichter is on fire.

Hillary is not even a competent liar

You know, the Hillary Body Double theory is pretty hilarious, but admit it – who would actually be surprised if it turns out she has a body double? Secretly, even the liberals are thinking to themselves, “You know, I can totally see that.”

Read, as they say, the whole thing.

The Internet is forever

Yesterday, a fucking idiot claiming to be a journalist posted this on Twitter:

David Shuster Irony

He has since deleted it, because he was getting clobbered by people who know better.  This will stay here as a reminder of his idiocy.

Real friends vs. social media friends

This came out of musings regarding a FB post bemoaning the use of the construction “If you don’t like my attitude about this, feel free to unfriend me” — something I’ve used a couple of times recently myself.  (I lost exactly one friend over that, according to FB Purity.)  This got me to thinking about the difference between real friends and Facebook (or social media in general) friends.

One of my best meatspace friends is a Bernie supporter. I can’t help it if he’s an idiot about that. We’ve been friends for four decades. We have much more in common than we do otherwise. So we get along and don’t talk politics. Much 🙂

My wife is a lifelong Democrat (but despises Hillary). I knew she was a Democrat (so are her parents) when I married her. But again, we don’t discuss politics…much.  (On the other hand, it helps that she’s more of a Scoop Jackson Democrat, not a wild-eyed radical dirty hippie like so many on the left are anymore.  She thought Occupy was stupid, too)

One of my fraternity brothers is not only a Democrat, he’s a union negotiator for the UAW. But again, we have more in common than we do otherwise. He holds political views that I disagree with…but we don’t discuss politics.  Much 🙂

Note the common denominator — I know these people well. They are long-time friends and associates in real life. I would no more “unfriend” them in real life than I would cut off my trigger finger.

On the other hand, I associate on social media with any number of people I barely know, and have either never met in meatspace or with whom I have only extremely limited associations.*  Some of those hold political views I find abhorrent. I’m sure they think the same of my political views. And the links with those people are often so tenuous that I honestly don’t care if they unfriend me for political reasons, or not.

Social media has been the catalyst for a lower and lower standard of social and political discourse over the past couple of election cycles.  As I touched on, below, in Democracy usually fails, the real-time ability to comment on other people’s opinions has turned the mill run of us into a community of mean, sarcastic assholes when it comes to those opinions.  The great Facebook Democracy of the Unwashed is driving our political conversation today, as it has for at least the last two elections.  What is sad is that the monolithic move to social media has led to the retirement (or near retirement) of a number of sane, thoughtful bloggers — because nobody reads blogs anymore.  That takes too long, when it’s easier to read pithy crap typed by your “friends” or view picture memes as if we had suddenly been reduced to a basic reading level where informed, thoughtful, and logical commentary is seemingly Sanskrit to the masses.  (In fairness, most millenials are already at that level, thanks to our crap schools.)

So when someone says, “If you don’t like my opinions, unfriend me,” maybe we should take them at their word.  It might make people spend a little more time thinking about what they say and write.  And that could only be for the good.
________________
* Many of them “handshake” Masons that I’ve met in real life maybe once, and en passant, or may not have ever met at all. I’m the international secretary-treasurer for a fair-sized Masonic organization with members all over the globe, so I get a lot of friend requests from people I know only because they send in a check once a year.  But I also have a lot of “friends” for whom I can’t really find a connection.  Naturally, if one of them starts spouting political crap that I’m diametrically opposed to, the likelihood is that I’m going to dump them.

Gun bloggers and Baen SF writers, in my view, are generally exempted from the “social media” category.  I’ve drunk good beer with some of them (well, not the SF writers — yet).  We get along.

Democracy usually fails

Pure democracy, anyway.  Our Founding Fathers knew it; that’s why they created a Republic for us.  Little did they know we’d only take two centuries to fuck that up.

Anyway.  After reading comments on an article regarding the dustup between CBS/Paramount and the fans who are producing the “Axanar” spin-off Star Trek movie, I really do wonder if the Internet has done us any favors.  What would have been, pre-1994, a simple article in something like Variety (it used to be printed exclusively on newsprint, for those not old enough to remember) that might have been discussed a few days later on a Usenet newsgroup that practically nobody actually read, has in 2016 become an instant forum in which readers may projectile-vomit their undistilled raw thoughts about the article anonymously and without regard for what anyone else thinks.*  (Indeed, such microcephalic idiots generally operate without filters between ears, brain, and mouth even in real life conversations and other interactions.  Sometimes even those of us who do normally operate with those filters engaged nevertheless find ourselves issuing that kind of internet comment, too.  So sadly, it’s not just those with tiny brains** who succumb, suggesting that the problem is really the siren call of the medium beckoning one to yield to that blinking cursor, not simply the individual’s solipsistic need to assert that the universe does, in fact, revolve around himself and that his opinion actually has any worth to anyone but himself.***)

The thing I don’t understand is why it’s anyone’s business except that of the parties involved.  Why did this article need instant comments at all?  It’s a simple report of news.  You want to respond to it, write an email to the editor like we used to do back in the day (although generally we typed or hand-wrote it on paper, stuck it in an envelope with a stamp (remember those?) and threw it in the mailbox to be delivered sometime in the next couple of days).  If the editors liked it, they might even print it in the next issue, and might even respond to you, thanking you for your well- or not so well-reasoned arguments, and in the latter case, gently explaining why you were a fucking idiot who needed to be spoon-fed the Truth as handed down by your Betters.

Oh, and — if you wanted to be taken seriously, you wrote politely.  Even if you were pissed off.  Such was the Republic of News; it was serious, it was considered, it was grave, and it was polite, even when it excoriated local or national politicians for real or imagined sins.  And it had its gatekeepers.  If they didn’t like your tone, your letter went into the round file with that of other barbarians and kooks.

Today we have the great Democracy of the Unwashed who simply react reflexively rather than respond thoughtfully.  And that’s why the comments section of that article about Axanar — and the comments section of so many other articles — is something you read only if you have no care for your sanity.

____________

* And often, without regard for correct grammar or orthography, either.

** Or small phalluses, but that’s really kind of beyond the pale, even for me.

*** Women also have this problem, but I’ll be damned if I’ll yield to political correctness and fuck up the flow of this post.

More lying crap from the far right.

Look, seriously: Please stop this shit.

hayes

Posted on Facebook last night by a friend who ought to know better. Go Google “US Army Sgt. Gregory Hayes”.  There is no such person* and, so far as I can tell, no such crime being tried in the courts.

I rail every day about memes like this that are promulgated by the loony left, but it just absolutely enrages me when I see the isolationist far right doing the same thing.  You people are better than this.  Because, if you’re not, you need to be put down like the rabid dogs you are.

I am no fan of opening the borders to unvetted Syrian refugees — or any others.  I want illegal aliens to go home and not come back.  But I refuse to be a party to rabble-rousing by ANY group of people.  STOP LYING, YOU FUCKS.  AND DO YOUR GODDAMN RESEARCH BEFORE YOU BLINDLY PASS A MEME YOU LIKED BECAUSE YOUR FUCKING KNEE JERKED AND YOU GOT A HARD-ON WHEN YOU SAW IT.

Fuck.

_____________________

* At least not according to Google; if your name is Gregory Hayes and you’re a retired Army Sergeant, I apologize, but I doubt you’re sitting in jail waiting to be tried for murder…and no retired Army Sergeant would be sitting in a bar wearing a hipster beardlet, anyway.  I hope.  Because if you are, either grow that fuzz out proper, or get a fucking shave, sarge.

The twats at Twitter do not dialog.

I have* a Twitter account, but I don’t use it very often; frankly I don’t understand Twitter, or the whole 140-character text genre, and on top of that, the interface is chaotic and the threading is hit and miss.  Primarily, though, it seems to me that 140 characters is the realm of people who cannot properly develop ideas, but feel that they must unload raw thoughts from their brain quickly so as not to overrun their idea buffer.  For this I blame the phenomenon of cell phone texting which predated microblogging, and public schools that don’t actually teach critical thinking anymore.

This is not to say that some quite intelligent people haven’t entered the field of short messaging  and made it their own; Twitter is perfectly suited for snark such as that produced by @TamSlick, or @JonahNRO, or @iowahawkblog, or @rsmccain.  And therein hangs the tail of this tale.

If you take a look at Stacy McCain’s post yesterday, you’ll see that some mob called the Trust and Safety Council — which is apparently made up of a bunch of neo-Fascists masquerading as well-meaning members of the Twitter community — has not only shut down @rsmccain’s account and told him that it will not be reinstated, they’ve also shut down his @SexTroubleBook account which was created solely to promote his book.  This was done because of vague assertions that @rsmccain was guilty of mopery and dopery, er, that he had participated in targeted abuse.  Stacy also alludes to the phenomenon of “shadow banning”, where basically folks like @monsterhunter45 (Larry Correia) and @AdamBaldwin can see their own posts, but nobody else can.  (Both Correia and Baldwin have quit Twitter over this, since it’s unlikely they’ll get any relief from the Fascist and Feminist, er, Trust and Safety Council.)

Now, anyone who reads Stacy’s blog knows that most of what he does on Twitter is respond to members of the Twitter community who attack him.  Not that Stacy doesn’t sometimes goad them into attacking, but that’s another story.  He tends (or tended, I guess I should say) to ask legitimate questions of people, mostly radical feminists, regarding some logical fallacy or inconsistency in their public musings, to which these people take instant offense rather than engaging in constructive dialog.

Now, I’m typing somewhat tongue in cheek, above, but it is somewhat alarming to see that yet another channel of public discourse (Facebook, I’m looking at you) has decided that the only free speech is speech of which the channel’s operators approve.  The suggestions I’ve seen lately (and have considered myself) that conservatives need their own Facebook and their own Twitter and their own this and that and the other thing sort of miss the point.  A conservative Twitter (to take the obvious example) operating under strictly 1st Amendment free-speech openness would result in two things:

  1. A conservative echo chamber where everyone was preaching to the choir; and
  2. A place where partisans of the Left would feel completely at ease targeting abuse at those of the Right — pretty much as they are already on the existing Twitter.  And Facebook, and just about every other social medium one can think of.

If site administrators were to crack down on the obvious abuse, they’d get their conservative principles thrown back in their face.  “Free speech, bitches, or do you not believe in the First Amendment anymore?  Hypocrites!”  You know the drill.

Although I must say that I’d love to see someone like the Kochs buy up TWTR when it gets down closer to zero value, fire that thrice-damned Jack Dorsey, and eject the whole Trust and Safety Council into LEO.  Sadly, what will probably happen at TWTR’s nadir is that Satan Zuckerberg will add it to the Facebook empire, and yet another opportunity to begin stemming the progressive media tide will be lost.

Because I think that conservative-owned social media will not be particularly successful (it seems really to be the province of the proggies, for reasons I think I’ve covered above), I keep wondering why conservatives don’t return to their online media strengths — talk radio, and blogging.  Talk radio seems to be doing OK (although I don’t listen anymore as I just can’t pay attention to, for instance, three hours of Rush Limbaugh talking about Apple computers or Select Number beds or whatever else he’s advertising these days — and on top of that, I’ve just about had my fill of people talking about Donald Trump), but the bloggers — other than the ones who actually make money at it, like Glenn Reynolds and Michelle Malkin and certain others — have pretty much abandoned their blogs and are off on Facebook because “it’s easier”.  I admit to abandoning this blog for long stretches and filling my Facebook wall with rage against the progressives.  The problem with Facebook is that you don’t control the environment.  Any Facebook blogger could be shut down tomorrow for crimes against Zuckerberg.

The truth is, the same could be said of Blogger, or of WordPress’s hosting service.  Which is why I have my own hosting and my own copy of WordPress.  Which causes trouble for my commenters but oh well — and suggests that perhaps one thing conservatives could do would be to create a powerful, conservative-oriented blog hosting platform where conservative bloggers could move their “free” hosted blogs and escape the possibility of Big Brother clamping down on them.  Maybe that’s been done, but I don’t know where.  The beauty of a blog hosting service would be that bloggers, although they often reference each other, don’t tend to find themselves locked into a walled garden where they interact only with each other (which is how I view Facebook and, to some extent, Twitter).  Because of the non-immediacy of their medium, bloggers also tend to be a lot more thoughtful about what they write, and tend to expand what they’re thinking, rather than simply vomiting disconnected thoughts of the moment into 140-character packages as Twitterers and Facebookers** do.  Blogs are out there on the Internet for anyone to find without having to lock themselves into a particular platform, and there used to be a pretty decent infrastructure that helped people expand their blog reading experience.  I suspect a lot of that has fallen by the wayside now that microblogging and Facebook seem to be what the popular kids do.  Again, I dunno — I don’t have time to go look and I haven’t been following things like the old blogging ecosystem sites for years.

Anyway — so why aren’t we blogging anymore?  Why are we subjecting ourselves to the proggie social media sites where we can’t fight back without being suspended in some way?  Is it really that hard to write 1200 words?  (I just did.)

______________

* Actually, I logged into it this morning, and thought, “Why the fuck do I still have this thing, anyway?”, and deactivated it.  So I no longer have a Twitter account.  Just in the interest of full disclosure.

** Yeah, I know you can type more than 140 characters into a Facebook post — but few do.  Mostly they post picticles*** or listicles instead of something they actually put any thought into.  I myself am guilty of that.  It’s insidious; it’s the Dark Side.  Satan Zuckerberg wrought well.

***  My definition of a “picticle” is something like a “listicle”, in other words, as a listicle is a bullet-point list that poses as an article (“Ten Weird Things…”), so is a picticle a picture with editorializing (or moralizing) text overprinted that speaks ex cathedra from the poster’s navel, and stands in place of making an actual argument with actual words and actual people who disagree with you regarding the subject at hand.

People of Wal-Mart need to take a chill pill. (Try the liquor department.)

Saw this on Facebook.

WalMartFatAss

Not sure I really agree without reservation.  A friend replied to the post, “replace ‘fat’ with ‘lazy’ and I’ll be in 100% agreement.”  Not really sure I agree with that, either.

My dad was 5’7″, 160 lbs, and looked perfectly healthy three months before he died at 76. And he had emphysema bad enough that he probably should have been on portable oxygen. Are you saying that because he looked otherwise healthy, he shouldn’t have been allowed to use one of these motorized carts to shop at the local big box store?

My 78-year-old father-in-law is a little skinny dude who looks healthy, too, but his knees are shot to hell.  Going to tell him he can’t use a scooter?  (He has his own, anyway, thanks.)  My 92-year-old stepfather also looks healthy till you realize his knees are shot, too.  No scooter for him, either?  (He can’t use one because he’s nearly blind, but again, thanks anyway.)

Before October 2013, my wife (who is pleasantly plump, but certainly not “fat” in that unique and appalling “people of Wal-Mart” way) had a hip that was so bad that she almost couldn’t walk to the store from the handicapped spot in the parking lot, let alone walk around on her own in the store. Would you say that she couldn’t use one of these carts before she had her hip replaced because, just by looking at her, you couldn’t tell she could barely walk because her hip socket had almost completely collapsed and the ball joint was grinding into her flesh?  If you would, fuck you up the ass.  Then maybe you’ll understand pain a little better.*

In my own case, I won’t use the motorized carts on general principle because I’m too damn stubborn to admit that sometimes I really can’t walk very well.  But I have bad knees and ankles from too many years working construction in my misspent youth.  And yeah, I’m 100 pounds overweight because I sit at a desk all day and can’t really get enough exercise to work it off anymore.  But I’ll sit on my ass at home rather than admit that I have to use the scooter.

I reserve judgment on “fat ass lazy” these days. Besides, it’s not for me to say; I figure folks who don’t really need to use the scooters will face a higher Tribunal, eventually.  And as an old sinner myself, that’s OK with me.

____________

* By the way, her hip wasn’t bad because she was overweight.  She had what was finally diagnosed as congenital hip dysplasia from birth that nobody discovered (or had any particular reason to be looking for) until she was over 50, when the weak joint finally failed.  There was speculation that if she wasn’t a swimmer and spent much of her work day in the water, it would have failed years earlier.

Older posts «