Category: Uncategorized

A well-known black columnist writes about yesterday’s column

Vox…well said…loved it…point we must make not stop making until same is ended.

LL has some suggestions:

Please revise the Afro-Abortion article. The politically correct term is now known as Afro-capable. Please revise paragraphs 1 through 11, to reflect a sugar-coated version, more appropriate for those of us who can’t handle blunt truth. Tell us the numbers but not the meaning behind them, and most undoubtedly, you will have to ensure that it is unbiased in political thinking. If you could also find a way to point a finger at a few conservatives while making these needed changes, we may be able to publish the article.

Actually, the mainstream media prefers not to provide the hard numbers, but rather the percentage change in the numbers, the better to avoid all possibility of comparison with past statistics.

Thus, “the economy grew x.y% in the fourth quarter” and “the American birthrate dropped 0.z% in 2005”.

JB, an obvious White Guy, is horrified by today’s column:

Horrible. I know that you meant it as a parody on liberal thinking. I know that the people who have received the worst lot in life due to liberal thinking and programs are the Afro-American population. I also am much agreived at the abortion issue, but Vox I think your editorial crossed the line. I kniow that brilliant thinkers like your self sometimes communicate in a way that is not understandable by us mere mortals, but I searched your editorial for the words that said you did not think about black people in the epithetic and critical tone of your desctiptions and I found no such disclaimer. I am appalled that WND would publish an editorial that so depreciates the worth of our Afro-American people.

It’s not a parody of liberal thinking, it’s an EXPOSURE of liberal thinking. And, as anyone who actually knows black people could tell JB, Afro is a hairstyle, African-American is the politically correct term. Racist pig!

Meanwhile, RB somehow manages to survive the virulent racism inherent in today’s column:

That was an excellent piece. Funny, being black, I would have been called an oreo for saying such things. Very much on target. Not only that, it was hilarious! Keep up the good work. Man! Does the truth ever hurt.

Dr. C urges me to “stop it!”:

For a while, I followed your columns and your blog. You seem to be reasonably intelligent and have some depth of insight into a number of subjects. However, that does not give you the right to make slurs like today’s WND column.

For the record I am a caucasion Christian and I think of black people as Americans – not African Americans. While the statistics of abortions may make your point, your manner is reprehensible.

I do not plan to read any more of your columns or revisit your blog because I am tired of all the junk about women libbers and blacks. What is needed is more talk about what is right – not what is wrong.

I laughed when I read this, only because it reminded me of the look that puzzled, culturally-sensitive Caucasians would give some of my black teammates when gently requested not to call them “African-Americans”. Typical conversation:

“Look, I’m black. Just call me black. It’s okay.”
“But we’re supposed to say African-American!”
“I’m from Kenya, I’m not American.”

Of course, they couldn’t simply be called African either, at least not the guys from England and the British Virgin Islands. I do so love the inevitable conundrums in which the politically-correct invariably place themselves.

The doctor’s displeasure with regards to my presumed negativity is somewhat mystifying, however, as I have always been free with positive advice as to what to do. Follow the Constitution. Use a gold standard. Declare war before fighting it. Stay single if you’re a young man who is not a Christian. Homeschool. Drink good red wine. Fight one-front wars, and one enemy at a time. Humble yourself before God and Jesus Christ. Learn the law. Think for yourself. Live free.

Of course, few ever listen, but that’s fine. In my personal experience, so many people have asked for my advice and then refused to follow it that I have begun to regard the whole ritual as a sort of Kabuki play and content myself with merely observing the results while remaining emotionally detached. That detachment has, rather obviously, inevitably carried over to this blog.

As for my manner, it is what it is. If you don’t like it, go pick up a mainstream newspaper. You can find nice vanilla pablum that goes out of its way to avoid offending anyone there which should prove more palatable to your tastes.

1. The refereeing was poor, but not terrible and it didn’t significantly affect the game. The three bad calls were on the Rothlisberger TD run, the ticky-tack hold on the long Seattle punt return and the bizarre cut-blocking call on Hasselbeck while he was trying to make a tackle. But overturning Hasselbeck’s fumble was the right call, and something that Seattle fans inclined to whine should keep in mind. Also, while the first Stevens drop was probably a correct call, it could easily have gone the other way. Overall, call it a two on a 5-point scale of Ref Bias, three being neutral. Annoying, but nothing to seriously complain about.

As for the penalty that negated Seattle’s first touchdown, that was an excellent call. Jackson was covered closely, he pushed off and created separation while the ball was in the air; without that separation he would not have been open. You could see Jackson’s arms at full extension and the covering Steeler stumble back two steps as a result, so it was a clear-cut penalty. No doubt about it. While watching, I called penalty before Jackson even caught the ball.

2. Rothlisberger was awful statistically, but I’ll still take his overall performance over Hasselbeck’s superficially better one. Rothlisberger stayed calm even when things weren’t going well and made plays to keep the Steelers in it early and clinch it late, while Seattle’s total meltdown during both two-minute drills was downright hysterical. While Hasselbeck was plagued by Steven’s butterfingers, but he threw big three interceptions even if only two of them were caught. He also gave up some very crucial sacks that knocked Seattle out of easy field goal range.

Rothlisberger did keep Seattle in it with that horrible pass in the red zone, but give the big guy credit for getting back and preventing it from becoming a touchdown… again. Stats are important, but so is leadership on the field.

3. Still want to argue about Seattle’s running game being better than Pittsburgh’s? I didn’t think so. Fast Willie’s been in my backfield roster since the second week of preseason… and 12 rushes for 95 yards, one TD is his game. Alexander is a very solid and talented running back with speed and power, but he isn’t a dominant RB the way Priest Holmes and Marshall Faulk were in their great years.

4. I love the way the Steelers use Randle-El. That pass was beautiful.

5. Dick LeBeau was surprisingly conservative in his defensive calls, which is why both Polamolu and Porter were so “quiet”. And is it just me, or is there a secret conspiracy to overturn every turnover that Polamolu picks off or recovers?

6. Apparently Mike Holmgren attended the Herm Edwards school of clock management over the summer. That was pathetic. I’ve seen random guys playing touch football who manage the two-minute drill better, and to blow it twice in one game is amazing.

7. Those Steelers’ fans at the game were idiots. You don’t scream when your team has the ball deep in its own end. Those two false starts didn’t exactly help Pittsburgh’s offense get untracked. Apparently, the fans at the game weren’t those with season tickets at Heinz field.

8. Overall, it was an entertaining game, at least for a Super Bowl.

Stephanie shakes a finger:

I wonder why you associate yourself with Jesus. You have poured out your contempt for Black women- ” fat, unattractive, unemployable” . Why associate this with Christ? Do you want to make His name more hated? Do you hope to make all Black women loathsome to themselves? Are good old boys patting you on the back? You are really on a roll. How clever that you get to appear as if you are a defender of Black infants while heaping derision on their mothers whom you so ably describe as less than animals. Why not leave Jesus out of this little enterprise which clearly is not His?

As you enjoy the applause of a well-fed, White and demonically led constituency, remember whose approval you do not have. Remember who has vowed to humble lofty eyes and destroy arrogant mouths. You have scorned the image and likeness of God. You have failed to recognize Christ in His distressing disguise. You have mocked the Blood that was spilled to save these “fat, unattractive unemployable” women. Tremble. Repent.

Now I did not see this one coming… I wonder if she would have liked it better if I hadn’t defended those innocents whom those women are destroying. She must be pure death on critics of Herod; I never considered the possibility that he might be the good guy in the Christmas story.

And I’m truly sorry if my errant Super Bowl prediction led anyone astray. Being off by a point is really inexcusable….

Scott Adams on how to be a henpecked man:

The biggest relationship mistake you can make is to assume that because you have some special training or knowledge on a topic, that your opinion should be extra important. You could be the world’s most respected expert on insects, for example, but if your mate insists that caterpillars grow into chipmunks, there will be no talking him or her out of it. You could try saying, “I have a doctorate in bugs, I know what I’m talking about” but your mate will hear “I am an overbearing ass pimple who doesn’t know a fly from a suspicious mole.”

So forget about how much you know, or how smart you think you are, or how much extra information you might have recently collected. That will not help you. Instead, I offer you the only solution: The WCM Method.

WCM stands for Who Cares Most. If you want your relationship to have a chance, defer all decisions and interpretations of fact to the person who cares the most.

This is simply a combination of the “Yes, Dear” method of relationship management with the old adage about squeaky wheels and grease. It’s not exactly surprising, since Scott Adams is a classic Gamma Male who can barely find a date despite the advantages of intelligence, great wealth and fame. I’d no more take his advice on this sort of thing than I’d ask a childless lesbian feminist for advice on child-rearing, or a homeless man for advice on derivatives.

(Don’t get me wrong, I very much like Mr. Adams’ blog and his cartoon, I simply suspect his mastery of the opposite sex isn’t exactly on par with Derek Jeter or Mick Jagger.)

If one must follow an Adams on the matter, John’s advice about refusing to bow to the dictatorship of the petticoat is rather superior, both for individuals and society at large. The sexual dichotomy is this: the man who accepts female abuse in pursuit of pleasure will soon find himself left to his own devices. Never forget that there are plenty of girls on the girl tree.

Peter King lauds the NFL’s choke artiste supreme:

I think I applaud Peyton Manning’s selection as the NFL Walter Payton Man of the Year…. The best thing he said this morning at his news conference was about the advice he often gives kids: “Take 10 seconds and think: What is the right thing to do?” he said.

Well, no wonder he kept getting sacked by Pittsburgh.

G guesses correctly:

I think it’s now safe to assume that Vox is using a cracked version of 3D Max.

And the reasons are several, most of them federal. Actually, it really boils down to one reason: Autodesk is the most reliably hateful company in the world. I own seven legitimate copies of 3DS Max, plus seven legitimate upgrades. Older versions, but completely functional and our software worked well with it, along with a slightly newer version (3) that had a feature we needed to use.

When I wanted to upgrade to a newer version, I was informed that our versions were now worthless, and that I would have to purchase brand new copies of the latest version, as if I had not paid full retail on the original seven copies and upgrades. Furthermore, I could not purchase version 3 either as it was no longer available. This left me with three options:

a) Do nothing and remain inoperative.
b) Pay lots of money for new versions of software I already own, knowing that they will not work and thereby remaining inoperative.
c) Get a cracked version of 3 and keep trucking.

Needless to say, we went with option 3. No-IP 1, Pro-IP 0 on the innovation front. We’ve since updated our software and are using a newer cracked version, (which they won’t let us buy either, since it’s not the latest), for the very good reason that the latest version broke a feature that we require. No-IP 2, Pro-IP 0. If we were to respect IP law, we’d have been dead in the water twice now. So much for the pro-IP innovation argument.

I’d be interested to know how this could be considered theft, by the way, as in addition to the obvious challenge to demonstrate physical loss, I am using a product that the copyright holder has informed me no longer exists and has no value whatsoever. By the way, I should mention that I am not attempting to justify anything here, as I would cheerfully burn down Autodesk headquarters with every Autodesk employee in it. Autodesk is the very last company with whose IP rights I am concerned, as I once worked for the company from whom they blatantly ripped off Autodesk’s pre-Windows iconic interfaces.

(Big Chilly was point man on the project, Autodesk was “working closely with him” to implement the interface in an important licensing deal for about a year, then suddenly turned around and claimed that they had been working on an independent design all along, killed the deal, and introduced exactly the same thing in their next version of AutoCAD. This was back when I had a conventional understanding of IP rights, so it infuriated me. To this day, they’re the only company I actually hate, as I still have some regard for certain people at Microsoft as well as their game strategy.)

Piracy made legal would put an end to the wealthy artist. It would revert back to the age of Mozart who spent his life running all over Europe kissing up to wealthy patrons (Electors, Emperors, Kings, Archbishops) in the hope of getting a commission for work.

The elimination of IP would mean that the only work of value would be that work which is kept private. It would be the end of pop music and the return of the choral symphony written in praise of, and for the unending glory of the Wealthy Elite Patron who paid for it because the composer certainly couldn’t make a dime trying to sell music elsewhere.

I daresay this could be construed as an anti-IP argument. Instead of catering to teenagers with disposable income, artists would be catering to a wealthy, educated and highly aesthetic elite with a genuine appreciation for art.

And we wonder why instead of Shakespeares and Mozarts, we are producing Jenkinses and Eminems.