Doctor: I need to send you for a biopsy.
Woman patient: I want a second opinion.
Doctor: You’re ugly.
Doctor: You have an inner ear infection.
Tom Jones: Is that common?
Doctor: It’s Not Unusual.
When I die I want to just go out like a light like my old dad, not like the screaming passengers in his car.
Sign of a good strain.
Teeth marks on the lavatory door.
A horse walks into a bar. The bartender says, ‘Why the long face?’
OK, enough of that, it’s silly and it’s getting late. This should make up for it, the great Welsh Contralto, Helen Watts, singing Bach.
A while back I linked to this column by Peggy Noonan, a great column it is too, thought at the back of my mind I’m thinking, ‘welcome to the party, Peggy, albeit a little late’.
Protein Wisdom is not so forgiving.
Or, to put it another way, one of the women who helped guilt the American people into electing a transformative Marxist with a dubious background and no governing experience, a man who, after his drug-addled youth hung out with domestic terrorists, academic (and activist) anti-Semites, and got his religious counsel from a man steeped in hatred of Whites and Jews, as head of the free world — while simultaneously turning down her nose at figures like Sarah Palin, who has proven over the course of time to be every bit as prescient as Ms Noonan was bamboozed, hoodwinked, and gloriously conned — is now writing to tell us the President is not who he promised he’d be. As if we haven’t been alive the last five years, or as if we were the ones whose snobbery and reflected egoism caused us to buy this charlatan’s obvious and vapid bullshit in the first place.
does not exist says Pierre Lemieux.
Speaking about Obamacare, MIT economics professor Jonathan Gruber said, “We’ve decided as a society that we don’t want people to have insurance plans that expose them to more than six thousand dollars in out-of-pocket expenses.”
What does it mean that “we” decide something “as a society”? It’s an important question: This sort of statement gets used frequently as a justification of government of intervention. When, in the same fashion, Obama says “we as a nation,” he is just using a variation of the same expression and talking like the average politician.
“We as a society” or “we as a nation” is generally used as an incantation with no scientific meaning. If it has any ascertainable meaning, it means “we who want to impose our current and perhaps changing whims on others.”
Maggie Thatcher of course was on board with this view.
“I think we’ve been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it’s the government’s job to cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant.’ ‘I’m homeless, the government must house me.’ They’re casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It’s our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There’s no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.”
Undercuts the whole way of thinking of the ‘progressives’ doesn’t it?
I started this as a reply to Tony’s comment on my last Nabakov post, but I thought I’d make it a post of its own.
Nabakov is a playful writer. His comment re Freud about “bitter little embryos” is typical Nabakov color. Another would be his comment that, for small boys to be delightful, they must hate to wash and love to kill.
Nabakov was born in 1899 to a middle-level aristocratic family at their estate, Vyra, near Saint Petersburg. That he became a celebrated author in English seems not so remarkable when you know that he spoke both English and French as a first language. Indeed he claims to have learned to write in English and French before he learned to write in Russian.
Although aristocrats, his family were political liberals who wanted to make Russia a democracy in the Western European fashion. He was annoyed when included with exiled reactionary Cossacks and other White Russians who wanted to keep the Tsar as absolute monarch. Nabakov’s father was an official in the short-lived democratic parliament that was overthrown by the Bolsheviks in the October Revolution. His family fled the communists, first landing in Crimea, and then in Berlin and Paris. He never lived in Russia after 1919. Nabakov attended Cambridge and graduated with honors, though he does not seem to have thought much of it. Too bourgeois. If you were to tell him that Cambridge was considered fit for the children of English monarchs, he might respond that English monarchs were known to serve at the pleasure of a bourgeois parliament. Nabakov attended Cambridge on some sort of scholarship that he only vaguely describes. I think it likely that he was sponsored by a White Russian group that wanted to create a recognized government in exile in Western Europe.
Yet, somehow, Nabakov does not seem snobbish. He writes for an audience of educated bourgeois, not for aristocrats. He consigns individuals to the category of ‘dummy’ or ‘blockhead’ without reference to social class or level of education. When reading Nabakov, you get the impression that he is complementing himself for having a genius high above others, and yet treating you, the reader, as his equal.
Nabakov lived in the United States after 1940, and became a naturalized citizen in 1945. He taught language and literature, first at Wellesley, then at Cornell. The success of his novel Lolita in the late 1950s allowed him to retire in comfort in Switzerland, where he died in 1977.
After the 1917 Revolution, Nabakov never again set foot in Russia. For all of his life as an exile, his homesickness for the area around Saint Petersburg, especially his family estate of Vyra, pained him greatly.
I’ve finished Pale Fire, and moved on to Nabakov’s memoir, Speak, Memory!. He was a man given to strong opinions, colorfully and memorably expressed. When examining his own childhood and his memories of his parents, he begins by utterly rejecting Freud:
. . . and let me say at once that I reject completely the vulgar, fundamentally medieval world of Freud, with its crankish sexual symbols (something like searching for Baconian acrostics in Shakespeare’s works) and its bitter little embryos spying, from their natural nooks, upon the love life of their parents.
They make it seem so real and so much closer specially for one who lived through it.
Check them out.
Links to other early colour photos at the site too.
Why is President obama Trying to Politicize the Holidays?
They mean Christmas* of course. Anyway, to answer the question – because that’s the sort of mindset he has, he’d have been right at home in East Germany
But the first floor of the Stasi Museum is not about spying. Instead, it is devoted to the propaganda that East German bureaucrats used to foster socialist consciousness in an unwilling public. One display explains the GDR’s efforts in the 1950s to politicize what in the past had been family and religious occasions. The state sought to transform weddings, confirmations, and other personal events into “socialist celebrations,” to be “committed collectively and aimed at a confession to socialism,” according to the awkward English translation of the exhibit.
The exhibition informs visitors that the project “did not gain popular acceptance.” Amazingly enough, people didn’t want to turn their family holidays into socialist celebrations.
*OK, they’re talking about Thanksgiving, but they’ve pluralised it and it sets my teeth on edge the way they’ve turned the fabulous festival of Christmas into a generic ‘holidays’.
obamacare, Religious Liberty and a Crucial Supreme Court Showdown.,
An important read. Wouldn’t it be nice if the MSM publicised articles like this, woiuldn’t it be nice if Dems could read it without their blinkers, wouldn’t it be nice if Reps based arguments on such as this? Yeah, when it gets chilly youi know where.