Ported over to the Inferno for improved legibility, this serves as a rather comprehensive overview of Fritz’s thoughts on the trends and currents that compose what many call “modernity”. Rewarding reading for those with time to invest, despite the often repetitive nature of Kellner’s prose — enjoy!
Posted by MRDA on April 10, 2014
It all started with Maajid Nawaz, a man who on paper ticks the boxes marked ‘safe’, ‘moderate’, and ‘reasonable’; being both a Lib Dem MP and executive director of the Muslim “counter-extremism think tank” Quillam, the reformed “radical”—who recently persuaded EDL founder Tommy Robinson to renounce his own extremism—hardly reads like the sort of person who’d make a point of courting controversy.
The obviously incendiary nature of this tweet elicited a fiery response from several parties. As well as the usual mob of miffed ‘n’ militant Mohammedians, some calling for Nawaz to “get cancer and die a painful deatg” (sic), “burn in hell”, “deactivate from life”and other nice things, pushback also came from politically-established folk such as Respect MP and Scottish Shariaite convert George Galloway, who vowed to rid the political arena of the “rancid” reformist’.
Still, all this reads like a standard story so far: man shares pic of The Prophet™, eliciting screeches and scourges from the pious and/or PC alike. Nothing particularly out-of-the ordinary, right?
Well, not until Channel 4 News covered the events, anyway. Their January 29th broadcast gave a rundown of events, as well as the verbal excretions of his co-Muslim Lib Demmers, determined to see him deselected (Check out Irfan Ahmed’s slimy definition of free speech, typical of many a special (pleading) interest group, and ponder the fact that he and others of his ilk whore for votes in the diseased brothel of democratic politics).
However, the words of the aggrieved abdullahs paled in comparison to Channel 4 News’ own acquiescence to such sentiments; in an unexpected show of PC propriety, they aired the image of offence (to others) with the most offensive of alterations (to me)…
…and to really rub it in, this censorship-hating viewer got treated to this cocksucking commentary:
We’ve decided not to show [Jesus & Mo] in full because representations of The Prophet™ are offensive to many Muslims, though others may disagree with our decision…
“Disagree”? I’ll fucking say!
Once upon a time, one could synonymise the name “Channel 4” with adjectives like ‘risque’, ‘cutting-edge’, ‘avant-garde’, and ‘controversial’. This was the channel that screened UK TV’s first (pre-watershed) lesbian kiss with Brookside; raised brows, and temperatures, with the notorious Red Light Zone weekends in the mid-nineties; rustled many a moralist by broadcasting a parody of paedomania; and, more recently, screened live autopsies, as well as the loss of a man’s virginity to a sex surrogate.
So, how is it that this otherwise shameless, bold, and irreverent station could reduce itself to such abject submission—to such sheer islam—in the face of a religious taboo?
As we are sure you can appreciate, this is a very sensitive subject for many viewers. Channel 4 News editorial staff gave great consideration to the issues involved and believe that they reached a fair and balanced judgement, weighing up the potential for offence to some viewers by showing the depiction of the Prophet Mohammed and the necessity of showing the cartoon in full.
The senior editorial team decided that the showing of the entire illustration, whilst likely to cause offence, was not integral to the story, and therefore took the decision to pixelate. Whilst we acknowledge your views, we believe that on balance this was the correct decision and as a rule, where we consider the likelihood of significant offence to our audience, we will attempt to mitigate against that. As to not pixelating the image of Jesus, it was not felt that the same level of offence was likely to be provoked as the image is commonly depicted in cartoon form.
We appreciate you taking the time to contact us and be assured your comments have been logged for the information of our News team.
Whenever some Occidentalist or other drones on about the prospect of “Eurabia”–the West’s demographic deluge beneath a sea of Islamic immigration—I often question the faith they claim to have in their own civilisation; as I see it, the problem lies not so much with the “invading hordes” they decry, but with the hosts who wilfully supplicate to any dysfunctions and neuroses they may import with them. Whether it’s pandering pizza chains who take non-halal meats off their menus, joke-shop judges who excuse belligerent behaviour on account of belief, or simpering student unions who penalise their press for printing irreverent illustrations, each Caliphate-courting capitulation contributes to a de facto dhimmiocracy, leaving all participants the worse for wear over time.
As such, even though organized atheism aggravates me as much as organized religion these days, I commend the gist of the National Secular Society’s open letter to Channel 4 News:
By redacting the picture of ‘Mo’, you have contributed to a climate of censorship brought on by the unreasonable and reactionary views of some religious extremists. Rather than defending free expression, one of the most precious pillars of our liberal democratic society, you have chosen instead to listen to extremists and patronise British Muslims by assuming they will take offence at an irreverent and satirical cartoon. By taking the decision you did, not only did you betray the fundamental journalistic principle of free speech, but you have become complicit in a trend that seeks to insidiously stereotype all Muslim people as reacting in one uniform way (generally presented as overly sensitive and potentially violent).
Given that your editorial decision seems to be have been weighted by a concern with offence, we might also note that you ended up with a report that was, in fact, very offensive to many; offensive to those who take seriously and cherish our basic freedom to speak and question, and offensive to many Muslims, whose voices you do not hear because you insist on placating the reactionary voices of people claiming to represent what it is to be an ‘authentic Muslim’.
In the subsequent interview with Mohammed Shafiq of the Ramadhan Foundation, presenter Jon Snow made the point that there are a number of places in the world where blasphemy is punished by death. This reality provides an apposite backdrop to the whole debate and, by extension, Channel 4′s decision to censor. In a world where the notion of offence to those with religious views is being used to control and punish people of all religions and none, the UK has an urgent responsibility to uphold freedom of expression in the face of religious extremism. Its news outlets share in this responsibility.
When a courteous yet convinced Muslim like Nawaz outdoes a supposedly transgressive TV channel in both balls and broadmindedness, perhaps it’s time for the latter to question its “cutting-edge” credentials.
Posted by MRDA on March 14, 2014
Of all the court cases the press have pored over recently, none have fascinated me more than that of John Welden, who recently started a 14-year prison sentence for drugging his girlfriend into a miscarriage. If memory serves me well, I first heard about the case last spring, when Welden first entered the dock on a charge of no less than murder.
According to the Mail (emphasis mine):
[Remee Jo Lee] was six or seven weeks pregnant when she miscarried.
Welden pleaded guilty in September to tampering with a consumer product and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. He had faced a possible life sentence if convicted of his original charge, killing an unborn child.
Welden admitted in a plea agreement that he forged the signature of his father, who is esteemed Tampa-area fertility expert Dr. Stephen Weldon.
Welden’s father had no role in the heinous crime, but was in the courtroom in the weeks preceding sentencing as prosecutors sought to prove that the single dose of Cytotec had caused Lee’s miscarriage.
Prosecutors succeeded after expert witnesses for the state testified that any amount of the drug also known as misoprostol could cause miscarriage.
Now, with the announcement of a verdict, these gears in my head set themselves turning once more. While the thoughts generated don’t apply to all particulars in this trial, I think them worth at least a few paragraphs contemplation.
The first thing that hit me in the face about this case was the initial charge levelled against him: where the flying fuck did the whole murder thing spring from? After all, the alleged ‘victim’ amounted to little more than a cell clump, baking in the brine of Lee’s uterine oven prior to its expunction: a procedure she could legally opted for up to 21 weeks later. What gives?
Daily Caller reporter Caroline May gives more of an insight into things; according to her (emphasis again mine), “Welden accepted a plea deal last year to avoid a possible life sentence if convicted of murder under the federal Unborn Victims of Violence Act, instead pleading to product tampering and mail fraud”. Under this frankly puzzling piece of legislation, an involuntarily terminated embryo assumes a posthumous personhood for the purposes of prosecution, a personhood otherwise denied it by the inclusion of Roe vs Wade on the same law tablets.
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb"
Because of principles of federalism embodied in the United States Constitution, Federal criminal law does not apply to crimes prosecuted by the individual states. However, 38 states also recognize the fetus or "unborn child" as a crime victim, at least for purposes of homicide or feticide.
The legislation was both hailed and vilified by various legal observers who interpreted the measure as a step toward granting legal personhood to human fetuses, even though the bill explicitly contained a provision excepting abortion, stating that the bill would not "be construed to permit the prosecution" "of any person for conduct relating to an abortion for which the consent of the pregnant woman, or a person authorized by law to act on her behalf", "of any person for any medical treatment of the pregnant woman or her unborn child" or "of any woman with respect to her unborn child."
This effective compromise between the “pro-life” and “pro-choice” positions results in a Frankenstein gestalt of legalistic white-knighting, under which the legally protected “personhood” of a certain demographic lies at the mercy of a woman’s whim. In other words, that fledgling womb growth has rights/no rights, dammit…unless m’lady says otherwise, of course! It reminds of those soldiers in the “pro-life” brigade who make an exception in their otherwise strident position for rape, placing female feelings above “the sanctity of life” and the decrees they profess to observe.
Not that those of a “pro-choice” persuasion uphold higher standards of consistency. Whilst cheerfully championing the “right to choose” of the womb-bearer, they sing a different song in regard to that of the sperm-donor, who is required to donate more than his genetic material should Little Miss Incubator choose to carry his tadpole to term. In fact, bringing up Mr Inseminator’s lack of choice over his financial contributions tends to elicit responses along the lines of “Shoulda kept it in his pants!” and “Boo-fucking-hoo!”, flavours of response that would be boo-hooed at by the “choicers” were they levelled against reluctant mums-to-be. Under the ostensible “best interests of the child” (Where have I heard that before?), the female’s legally-protected “right to choose” childbirth imposes a legally-enforced 18-year duty on the male to be a walking wallet, whether or not he consents to the arrangement; all this with special-pleading approval and scant contest from those who claim to champion choice.
To her credit—and Welden’s disgrace—Lee had professed her lack of complicity in this state of affairs:
Federal prosecutors said Welden never wanted Lee to have his baby – even though she was determined to keep the pregnancy and raise the child on her own.
After she lost the fetus in the hospital, she went to police and agreed to have her conversations with Welden recorded.
‘I was hoping that this was some sort of horrible mistake,’ Lee said. ‘He told me what the medication was, and it was Cytotec.’
Authorities released a transcript of a conversation Lee had with Welden.
Welden told Lee that Tara Fillinger, his other girlfriend, had found out about their relationship and was ‘furious’.
Lee says: ‘If you wanted to go be with Tara, that’s fine. Go be with Tara.
‘I woulda had my kid and I woulda been fine with that… woulda told my parents it was someone else’s. I wouldn’t have bothered you for money. I wouldn’t have bothered you at all.’
‘I didn’t want to be that guy,’ Welden replies.
Nevertheless, under a legal system which rigs “reproductive rights” as a white-knighting, rent-seeking, zero-sum game, I can conceive contexts where a slip of Cytotec to the womb wouldn’t be such a contemptible act.
(Thanks to Meat Curtain of Doom for the womb/wallet pic.)
Posted by MRDA on February 20, 2014
Of the starlets currently ascendant in Hollywood, none seem to elicit more fanfare than one Jennifer Lawrence. Nicknamed “J-Law” by a fawning press and fanbase, the cherub-cheeked celeb captures hearts and loins worldwide with a combo of feisty, forthright character roles and gorgeous genes.
More recently, in the spirit of her Hunger Games character, Katniss Everdeen, she hit headlines and heartstrings with a two-pronged stab at what some might term “social justice”. Her first prong came back in November when—in the wake of Miley Cyrus’ twerktastic MTV VMA perfomance—she made her voice heard against the “disgusting” deluge of gyno-sexualisation flooding the media today:
Speaking at the London premiere of Hunger Games: Catching Fire, the 23-year-old Oscar-winning star, said the sexualisation of young women has become so prevalent, women no longer challenge it.
Though she didn’t mention Cyrus by name, Lawrence said: "For some people, that’s how they feel best, that’s how they feel sexy."
I have to say, I totally get where she came from with all that, what with all the supple starlets I see sprawling their young, half-naked forms across many a medium.
In fact, it reminded me of the time J-Law first came to my attention, playing the shapely, scantily-clad mutant girl Mystique in X-Men: First Class; beyond my general interest in the franchise, my curiosity was roused by, among other things, wanting to see more of this eye-pleasing newcomer.
As such, I wondered whether Lawrence had taken leave of her perceptual abilities with those statements of hers, given how much of her career seems to involve selling come-hither gestures and glimpses of her flesh: one Katniss doesn’t erase a portfolio of Esquire snaps. In light of this, I put J-Law’s jawing down to a radical lack of self-awareness, if not a cognitive dissonance akin to that of the French maid from Tittybangbang: “Don’t look at me—I’m shyyyyyyyy!”
Then came the second prong shortly before Christmas, when J-Law bemoaned the ever-pervasive phenomena known as “fat-shaming”:
Lawrence went onto explain: ‘I think the media needs to take responsibility for the effect it has on our younger generation on these girls that are watching these television shows and picking up how to talk and how to be cool.
‘So all of the sudden being funny is making fun of the girl that’s wearing an ugly dress.’
Adding emphatically: ‘And the word fat! I just think it should be illegal to call somebody fat on TV.
‘If we’re regulating cigarettes and sex and cuss words because of the effect it has on our younger generation, why aren’t we regulating things like calling somebody fat?’
The star has previously spoken out about her normal body image and the pressure to lose weight for her role in The Hunger Games.
She told the BBC: ‘When we were doing the first The Hunger Games, it was a big discussion, ’cause it’s called The Hunger Games—she’s from District 12, she’s obviously underfed, so she would be incredibly thin. But, I just kept saying, ‘We have the ability to control this image that young girls are going to be seeing.’
‘Girls see enough of this body that we can’t imitate, that we’ll never be able to obtain, these unrealistic expectations, and this is gonna be their hero, and we have control over that.’
I’m sure this advocacy garnered a thumbs-up from those whose idea of a Hunger Game involves shoving fingers down their throats. However, from me, it elicited nothing but a raised eyebrow; unwittingly or otherwise, both this and her previous prong seemed to work towards a dual end—thinning out her competition whilst fattening her fanbase.
Perhaps that sounds a tad too cynical; perhaps J-Law’s immersion in the world of showbiz and celebrity, where airbrushing and Photoshopping run rampant, simply insulates her from less ridiculous conceptions of fatness. Still, in effect if not intent, Katniss posing as St Fatniss, patron saint of plump and frump, does those she claims to champion something of a disservice. Though a little more filled-out than your standard young screen siren, she ultimately sits safely in the svelte zone, leaving more than enough space to squeeze in some hand luggage; thus, to less starstruck eyes, her ruminations on her weight and desirability amount to little more than Miss-World-style humblebragging at best, and a nitpicking neuroticism not foreign to females at worst.
Want an economic analogy? Picture a trust-fund baby, safely among “the 1%”, whining about the poor health of their bank account.
This discrepancy between professed self-image and reality has also been spotted by one Jenny Trout, a blogger grappling with more sizeable weight issues:
Imagine if Melissa McCarthy had made so many public comments about food and McDonald’s. It wouldn’t be cute or funny, it would be schtick. Look at the fat woman, being human and hungry for something bad for her! How grotesquely humorous it is when fat people eat! When Jennifer Lawrence makes these comments, it’s acceptable, because her body is still pleasing to our cultural expectation of voluptuous, slim-waisted, long-necked female beauty.
Comments about how much food Jennifer Lawrence loves to eat further builds the unicorn-like mystique of actresses who maintain cultural expectations of slenderness while claiming that they eat whatever they want and never work out. Is it more damaging to a fat woman’s self-esteem to see a thin woman on a movie screen, or to see that thin woman calling herself fat and claiming her celebrated figure is the product of eating McDonald’s and hating exercise? I’m fat. I eat a lot of McDonald’s. I do exercise, though I sometimes hate it… so, why then, when I admit to these things, am I a public health crisis, and slender, beautiful women who say them are positive role models? I’m pretty sure you know where this is going.
The reason Jennifer Lawrence is allowed to be a body-positive role model to young girls and “chubby” women is because she is representative of conventional beauty. She is a thin woman, exhibiting the thin privilege (and I know how much people hate that phrase) of making self-conscious body remarks while the rest of the world rushes to assure her that she’s gorgeous. Jennifer Lawrence’s public image has been built on a foundation of fat girl drag. She can call herself fat in interviews. She can actually believe she is fat, if she wants to. But she is not a fat woman, and her experiences do not speak to the experiences of actual fat people, no matter how strenuously Tumblr works to make it seem so.
In the shoes of Jenny Trout, I’d take talk of plus-size “body-positivity” seriously from someone like, say, Bunny De La Cruz…
…but from Lawrence?
Not so much.
Plus, if the director of American Hustle carries any credibility, it sounds as if J-Law doesn’t always take her own weight-positive rhetoric seriously:
Jennifer Lawrence may have been lucky enough to smooch Christian Bale in the Golden Globe-nominated film American Hustle, but director David O. Russell admits it wasn’t exactly how she pictured it. During the Australian Academy of Cinema & Television Arts Awards in West Hollywood Friday night, the director told Us Weekly what the Oscar winner really thought about kissing him.
"’I finally get to make out with Christian Bale and he’s a really fat guy,’" Russell recalled Lawrence, 23, saying while filming the crime drama. She said: "’He’s Fatman, not Batman.’" (In 2012, Bale showed off a much more muscular, toned physique when he played Bruce Wayne in The Dark Knight Rises.)
Bale, 39, went through a major transformation to land the role of con-artist Irving Rosenfeld in American Hustle. The English actor gained a noticeable amount of weight, and even exposed his new gut by wearing his shirt open in one particular scene.
An inside joke? Not unlikely. Still, if true, it rather undermines what she said against throwing the word “fat” around in any context. I wonder if she sang “Dinner, dinner, dinner, dinner…” on set, too, whenever he walked past.
On top of that, it also lends my eliminate-the-competition theory a pinch of plausibility. Self-objectifying, fat-joshing celebs speaking out against such behaviour—just why would they do that?
For those starving for less questionable aesthetic ambassadors, I fear the Hunger Games will continue…
Posted by MRDA on January 30, 2014
A.D. 2014, and it seems obvious that the highfaluting notion of “progress” remains almost purely a technological phenomenon. Whilst the denizens of Slave Britannia cow under the yoke of political correctness and media censorship, those further south of the sphere make a sport of killing and jailing those of differing creeds and copulatory tastes. Universally, nation-states continue their eternal pursuit of bleeding the citizenry in the name of their pet schemes and shibboleths.
Still, some voices, though far from heroic, merit a mention for seeking to turn the turgid tide.
Listening to Christian radio a week or two ago (Don’t ask!), I caught word of Conservative MP Liam Fox’s proposal to nix foreign aid for countries that tolerate and/or endorse anti-Christian persecution. Gears set turning in my head, I decided to follow up this interesting news snippet with a Google search or two; it so transpires that ol’ Fox has been beating the drum against frivolous foreign aid for several years, steadily radicalising his stance with each orbit round the sun.
Here’s where he stands, as of September 2013:
Speaking at a fringe event at the Conservative Party Conference in Manchester, he said: "We should use our leverage to ensure that those ethics of generous British citizens who provide the money through their donations and through their taxes, are reflected in those countries whom we assist.
"We should make clear that religious tolerance and equal rights are an essential part of our culture which we insist in being replicated in the recipient nations and if they are not, then our aid policy should be re-evaluated.
"We are who and what we are, not just because of economic strength but because of what we believe.
“Our commitment to political freedom and expression, the economic freedom within a free market framework and our religiously tolerant society have shaped not only this country but many around the globe."
- The Express
Not a bad start, methinks, but I think this kernel could stand to see some growth. As much as Fox’s heart professes to bleed for the Christian dhimmis of the various Islamistans, I wonder if he feels similarly passionate about those other more secular demographics whose “equal rights” go unrecognised elsewhere in the world. How does a professedly God-fearing MP feel about his brothers and sisters in Christ disregarding the “equal rights” of homosexuals in Uganda? Will an MP who unabashedly declared “Israel’s enemies are our enemies” be so eager to stem the flow of aid toward that nation-state as a result of its own dubious record on “ethics”?
I suspect it’s not such an urgent concern.
Still, I’m sure some interested parties could take a leaf out of Fox’s book, perhaps go even further then him in regard to rhetoric. It’s not like, say, Peter Tatchell has been shy about making stark political statements in the past, what with his attempted arrest of Robert Mugabe and clashes with queer-hating Russian neo-Nazis; that sort of balls-to-the-wall mentality could go a long way towards forming an anti-foreign-aid coalition, dedicated to striking at the root of sustenance for many an overfed, overseas dictator and bureaucrat. Ideally, it’d be spearheaded by those concerned about violations of lives and liberties in foreign lands, but it’d ultimately serve as an alliance of means for a variety of disparate ends.
Apart from libertarians and humanitarians, it could have amongst its members environmentalists worried about the impact of third-world carbon emissions; members of religious, racial, gender, and sexual demographics persecuted abroad; political refugees with feelings of patriotism toward their homelands; aid organisations who sidestep extortionists and dictators in the achievement of their aims; and, of course, nationalists who deplore political enthusiasm for state-to-state charity at the expense of “their own”. Hell, let’s throw in those tax resistance folk for a strategic kick, and even a few politicos…
In short, a rainbow of resolute resistance against extorted welfare for oppressive, wasteful, plutocratic regimes.
It’s an idea, at least…
Posted by MRDA on January 14, 2014
Once again, lushes and reprobates, we arrive at that cold-yet-colourful time of year, when ghouls, trolls, and hobgoblins emerge from the underworld to plague the psyches of those all-too-ready to shriek, shudder, and squirm at their presence. And once again, on the run-up to this night of nefariousness known as Halloween, a collage of cosplayers came out embracing the exotic an esoteric, much to the chagrin of the “social justice” warriors railing against “cultural appropriation” in an ironic and unwitting ode to George Wallace – “SEGREGATION NOW, SEGREGATION TOMORROW, SEGREGATION FOREVER!”
Though less ethnically-charged, the run-up to fright-night festivities on this side of the pond proved no less of a killjoy-magnet. September saw something of a stink kicked up over a series of costumes marketed under the monikers “Mental Patient” and “Psycho Ward”, supposedly a grave offense to those struggling with the stigma of mental disorders, despite the overwhelming majority of them not traipsing around in boilersuits, straitjackets, or a state of bloodied necrosis.
The nonsensical moral panic reached its apex with arm-twisted apologies by talking heads from both Tesco and Asda, the retailers of said regalia, with the latter store even coughing up a huge contrition fee (euphemistically known as a “donation”) for the mental health charity Mind.
However, all that noise proved a mere prelude to the shitstorm that ensued when Amazon put a zombie costume of the posthumously-disgraced Jimmy Savile up for sale on its site. Again, charities and pressure groups lead the outpouring that gushed into a “deluge of complaints”, drowning Amazon’s desire to market the mock-up; unsurprisingly, a considerable number of folk took more than a bit of umbrage to the alleged child-abuser being made into a Halloween party piece.
Personally, I fail to see anything out of place here; anything, that is, beyond the copious whinging over this and the other supposedly “inappropriate” Halloween costumes.
Far from signalling any concerns of decency, all this harumphing and hectoring over Hallowear does a good job of showing up a society shuddering at the sight of its own shadow. With the threat of vampires, werewolves, and the like sanitised and contained by time and celluloid, Modern Man seeks more formidable fiends to bedevil himself with, and what better bane than the spectre of the sex predator, seeking up exemplars of childhood and adolescent “innocence” to defile and devour? Certainly a more tangible threat than some (de)fanged fictional “fright”, whose threat level bursts into sparkles under the stark light of clarity.
By getting enraged over cartoonish psychos the maddened crowd pretty much bring their own simmering psychoses screaming into the spotlight. Whenever I see members of the general public frothing over this moral panic or that, I wonder if they wouldn’t be more at home in a straitjacket, pounding a padded cell as part of their Pavlovian psychodrama.
Perhaps excluding the “paedos” and “psychos” from store shelves is one way for these fractured fretters to avoid facing the constitution and consequences of their (re)actions. A thought, at least…
Posted by MRDA on October 31, 2013
- None leave this world unblemished – to try is to self-deny.
- Pro-bomberventionists: "You can kill all the civilians you want, just not with those."
- For some, objectification may serve as something of a shield from the animosity they would accrue were their "real me" known.
- You "beg to differ"? Why not just get off your knees and dare?
- Feminnit: A chavvy feminist.
- In the wake of tragedy, folk too often prize the words of the sobber over the sober.
- Courage…honesty…audacity: what do such signal but comfort with one’s own vulnerability?
- Moralism and atrocity make excellent fuckbuddies.
- Whenever someone uses the phrase "as a society, we must…", I really have to restrain the urge to do something decidedly antisocial to them.
- Inequality is the spice of life.
- Internet Tough Guy (or Girl): The apex of fibre-optic fauxmidability.
- "Think of the children!" = "I’m too squeamish to own my squeamishness!"
- Moralism: Passive-aggression with a halo.
- Proximity: enemy of both adulation and antipathy.
- Being a "me first" type of person isn’t synonymous with being a "me only" type of person.
- "Wake up!": The fedora of oratory.
- The celebrity: modern man’s dubious attempt to bestow infatuation with dignity.
- With the passage of time, seeing with one’s own eyes becomes more of a discipline than a default.
- The human species: seven billion flavours of dysfunction.
Posted by MRDA on September 30, 2013
Well, lushes and reprobates, it came and went (again): that date of dates forever marked by the emergence of emergency across the pond twelve years ago yesterday. (Sadly, the planned commemorative Muslim ‘n’ biker bash in D.C. failed to take off as hoped — unlike those fatal flights.)
But of course, you already knew about that; I mean, how could you not with all the pundits ‘n’ politicos haranguing you to “never forget”?
This memetic memorial succeeded in diminishing the stature of that preceding American atrocity known as Columbine, a murder-suicide spree perpetrated in part by Dylan Klebold, who sprang from his mum’s muff thirty-two years ago yesterday. (Fitting for both his birth and death to be marked by fevered 9-11 calls, eh?)
As well as outdoing that instance of Stateside slaughter, the Day of Emergency also set the stage for a series of exciting adventures in West Asia, first embarked on by George W. Bush and continued by his brotha-from-anutha-mutha, Barack “Nobel Peace Prize” Obama. The latest proposed landmark? The sands of Syria, headed by the latest designated Enemy of the Free World, Bashar al-Assad, a man who celebrated the completion of his forty-eighth year yesterday, on that decisive date.
Of course, such international expeditions cost a bomb (or several), not just in terms of finances but also freedoms; in keeping with the day’s theme (and meme), let us not forget the sacrifices those brave American admins make in order to bring peace and security to friends foreign and domestic.
All in all, un bon anniversaire, non?
Posted by MRDA on September 12, 2013