Today's "headdesk" moment

Today's headdesk moment comes to us courtesy of The General, who recently came to the attention of some genius at CounterPunch, who apparently is just as conversant with the broader world of the internet and all its conventions as Prince Shannon.  I love The General, though strictly in a gruff, manly,  biblically-approved, hetrosexual way - don't believe a word of what that drunken lying preevert Cletus says!

Oh, and in case you missed it -- Sadly No presents last week's headdesk moment.

A couple of messages from one of the neighbours

Billy Bob Neck speaks for the heartland of America.

"It's a thin line between clever and stupid"

I'll confess I don't read the entire Washington Post every day. In fact, I usually only scan the front of their web page for the headlines, read the pieces that interest me, maybe check the occasional column or editorial. Since, however, my newspaper carries their Sunday "Outlook" - albeit a few days late - I always get to read their main weekly opinion "think piece section.
Sometimes it's a good read, sometimes not and while it has slowly become more conservative over the last half-dozen years, this week had a piece that really made me think very, very hard--"Yes, We're Out of Power. But I'm Still Starstruck" by S. E. Cupp. Not having previously heard of the author, I really couldn't decide on the merits of the article itself whether it was a staggering work of brilliant satire, an inside joke, life imitating McSweeny's or just what the hell it was, but read some of these bon mots and see what you think:

See, in my world, stars don't come any bigger than Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, Mitt Romney and Mike Pence (if there were a congressional version of Teen Beat, the Indiana congressman would be on its cover every month). Michael Steele, Mike Huckabee and John Boehner are the Jonas Brothers of conservative celebrity.

You see my confusion - that last comparison will mean different things to different people. On the surface, I suspect conservatives will see comparing Steele, Huckabee and Boehner to the very popular teen idol popstars as an endorsement of their star quality, their charisma and penchant for success. All of which ignores the truth that lies only nanometers below that surface - the Jonas Brothers are a trio of talentless pretty boys assembled in a Disney PR laboratory to appeal to a group of very unsophisticated, uncritical consumers - preteen girls. They, and others like them, are the personification of all that is wrong with America. (Now, I know dear reader,　you are dying to ask "who does he mean 'they'? Is he talking about the pop stars or the politicians?" To which I can only answer "Yes.")

Obviously, something like "And doesn't everyone want to have "Breakfast with Phyllis Schlafly"? Just me?" can never be anything but ironic, but just how deep is the irony intended to penetrate? And what are we to make of this vision of hell:

"I'm also looking forward to drinking boxed wine with such friends and colleagues as Tucker Carlson, Stephen Baldwin and Andrew Breitbart during the forced socialization of conference happy hours...And, yes, I just totally name-dropped."

The article ends with same kind of awkwardness that one might experience upon walking into the men's room and seeing Ann Coulter emerging from a stall.

And let's not forget the thrill of the unplanned and unexpected. The environment at conferences like CPAC is ripe spectacle -- the hilarity of an inebriated speaker, the hysteria over a surprise guest, or an awkward moment between you and that woman you met last year whose name you've completely forgotten.
Last year a disheveled-looking man sat on a street corner near the hotel all four days, pan-handling. He held a cardboard sign that read, "Bush is Bi." I'm not sure what he meant by that -- I have a feeling he didn't know, either -- but I really hope he'll be there again. Who needs star power when you have memories like that?

Having checked out Ms.Cupp's website, I'm still undecided - she's either the nee plus ultra example of the "sassy young conservative sex bomb pundit" right down to the librarian glasses and the guns-and-nascar fetish or she's mining the same territory as Stephen Colbert but in a much more subtle and undercover way.

Ending prohibition - a pinko plot!

Once again a short post at the Gazetteer has provoked me into writing a lengthy comment that has morphed into a full post. It seems like it was just last week that my inner conservative had to set RossK straight on the folly of funding scientific research instead of paying huge bonuses to bank executives and brokers. Now he's suggesting that taking all the profitability out of the drug trade might be a way to stem drug-fueled gang violence. Silly progressive, why does he hate capitalism and the American dream?

Dear RossK,

Are you suggesting legalization?

That's crazy!

Allow people who want to take an intoxicating substance that has been around for centuries without subjecting them to the dangers of robbery, inferior possibly even poisonous product, criminal violence and legal persecution and incarceration? Why would we do that?

During the golden era of prohibition, people made fortunes selling liquor in the United States. Once people realized they could go to a speakeasy instead of going blind drinking homemade bathtub gin, they went in droves. Such illegal hot spots thrived on gambling and prostitution (in for a penny, in for a pound) and stayed in business through a massive system of corruption and bribery. Empires were built and everyone made money! Real, unfettered capitalism thrived and entrepreneurs like Al Capone became rich and powerful. It was the American Dream in action!

And then Franklin D. Roosevelt a bunch of America-hating pinkos who hated freedom decided to punish success and ended prohibition, spoiling the whole thing.

Right now, just as during the good old days of prohibition, thanks to the strict laws against drugs in the United States, the drug trade is largely controlled by large, powerful, well-organized and heavily-armed groups who murder anyone who gets in their way and there is very little that law enforcement can do about it. It's that kind of ambition that has made America the superpower it is today!

Legalizing drugs would take money out of the pockets of hard-working dealers, smugglers, crack-house operators, gang-bangers, thugs and black-market gun-dealers and put it back into the hands of students, musicians, working people of all kinds and most especially desperate drug addicts who currently need to steal to support their addictions, thus creating jobs in law enforcement, security services, the prison industry and the legal profession. Why do you want to put hardworking narcs and lawyers in the poorhouse RossK?

Good conservatives know that its is important to get tough on crime. I suppose a beatnik like you thinks it would be "groovy" if we sent fewer people to jail, just because their crimes have no obvious victims. Well, I've got news for you, hophead, thanks to the sensible lock'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key drug and prison policies enacted in the last couple of decades, the United States has the highest rate of incarceration and the largest prison population in the world. That's right, the USA is NUMBER ONE!!!!1!

Don't you realize that legalization is racist? It's simple - five times as many whites use drugs as blacks, but the government, in its mercy sends far more blacks than whites to prison to get the help they need to stay away from drugs and crime. If we legalize drugs, how will society help all these poor young black men stay out of trouble? (Have a look here for more information)

Without being the source of desperately needed drugs, how will pimps control their prostitutes? By violence, that's how! Why do you want these poor fallen women to get beaten up RossK?　Don't you know it's hard out there for a pimp?

Furthermore,　legalization would give the oppressive forces of big government another source of tax revenue to squander on stupid things like drug rehab centers, schools and public health programs. And they would be able to stick their interfering fingers into controlling the strength and quality of drugs, taking all the mystery out of the market for buyers. What is the free market without some risk?

Being as how you're obviously some kind of drug addled hippie (who else would support legalizing drugs?) I bet you're in favour of the safe injection site in Vancouver that has taken heroin addicts off the streets where they belong and put them in a controlled environment where they won't die from overdoses or get AIDS from dirty needles. I mean honestly RossK, junkies are like cockroaches, they are the scum of the earth -- if they don't die from overdoses or AIDS, how the heckfire are we supposed to get rid of them? If an early death from drugs was good enough for jazz great Charlie Parker, it should be good enough for them.

And if we decriminalize addiction, won't that make it easier for junkies to get into rehab centers, thus taking up valuable space that could be used to incarcerate the children of wealthy families who have been thrown out of boarding school for smoking pot? Why do you hate successful people RossK? Don't you know that's class warfare? You who else was a big fan of class warfare? Mao!

So, there you have it: Legalization is a communist plot.