First, the disclaimers: when I say "10 things I hate about you," I don't mean you specifically. For one thing, I don't know any single person who could be characterized by all ten of these. Personally, anyway. (And were someone like that to exist, I would go to considerable trouble to avoid making acquaintance.) And "hate" is too strong a word, really; it's as far to the left side of the scale as "love" is to the right, and historically, I've sought to remain somewhere in the middle. That said, though, here are 10 things I hate about you:
- You have some weird notion that by making state and local laws sufficiently exclusionary, you will somehow discourage gay couples from, well, forming couples.
Oklahoma's State Question 711, passed in 2004 by an inexplicable 3-1 margin, blocks same-sex marriage, which is one thing; however, it also blocks approval of any kind of domestic-partnership benefits, which is quite another. If you're really concerned about Threats to Sacred Matrimony, you might start by giving some thoughts to why half of all Sooner State marriages, each and every one of them consisting of one man and one woman, end up on the divorce-court floor. Now that's a threat.
- You insist on operating in secret, in an age where transparency is soon to become the rule.
Yes, I'm looking at you, Oklahoma City Urban Renewal Authority. The City makes available information, agendas and transcripts for almost every regulatory body in town except you guys. What makes you so special? Or is it just that the good ol' boys can't stand the light?
- You use the guilt trip as a weapon.
This is standard "progressive" fare these days, but the most blatant offenders are the race pimps: the Al Sharptons, the CAIRs, the MEChAnoids, and all their friends. Let me make this perfectly clear: until you can demonstrate that I personally have benefited from keeping your "people" down vague references to "white privilege" and other popular myths won't do the job I owe you nothing, and the day you're exiled to the dustbin of history is a day which will be worth celebrating for centuries to come.
You can't read; alternatively, you can read, but won't.
I had a lot of traffic last week from one of the lefty blogs (no link for him, you can look it up at Technorati if you care) based upon my offhand observation that demoted Star Tribune columnist James Lileks might have fared better had he been a "transsexual sportswriter," a reference to the Los Angeles Times' Christine Daniels, whose coming out I discussed in last week's Vent. The dimbulb in question boiled the whole thing down to "MSM is for fags," indicating quite clearly that either he didn't read the Daniels material, or that he did and chose to misrepresent it. Either way, this is just another example of intellectual dishonesty, a trademark of the American left and the Europeans up whose keisters they gladly insert their heads.
- You really think you can round up eleven million people and ship them back across the Rio Grande, or keep the next few million from coming in.
Not a chance. In 1972, my Army basic-training company, on the spur of the moment, worked up a scheme on the Survival, Evasion and Escape course that managed to catch just about everyone in a rival company that night. Said scheme was effective, yes, but it was extremely personnel-intensive; if you wanted to duplicate this feat at the Mexican border, you'd have to draft everyone in [fill in state with more people than, say, New Hampshire] and put them to work as crossing guards. This is not going to happen, either under the Bush administration, which bows to its corporate sponsors' desire to have cheap labor, or under a presumably-eventual Democratic administration, which bows to its party's desire to round up every conceivable potential vote, legal or otherwise. There are reasons to tighten up terrorists can cross the border as easily as lawn workers but don't look for mass deportations any time soon.
- You're worried sick over "climate change."
The very nature of Nature is change; it's going to happen. Period. The idea that somehow it's possible to stop the process, to seal off the earth and freeze it in some sort of statis field, is right out of science fiction, and bad science fiction at that. We do not live in a museum. And it's ultimately immaterial whether the temperature goes up a degree or two, or goes down a degree or two, or doesn't move at all: the global-warming scoundrels are motivated, not by any concern for the planet, but by a simple lust for power. At the moment, I trust Al Gore about as much as I trust Jack Abramoff; this entire "carbon credits" scam is designed to put many grand in the hand of the man from Tennessee. No thanks.
You think you're entitled to some sort of special consideration because you live in a place that's subject to natural disasters.
Cry me a river, Bunkie. And right now, most of the rivers in this state are close to or at flood stage after two weeks of downpours. Here in Tornado Alley, we pay the second-highest homeowner's-insurance rates in the country, and we adjust our budgets accordingly. If you want to live ten feet below sea level, or right in the path of an Atlantic hurricane, it's fine with me, but you have no right to ask me to pick up the tab. I don't see anyone in Greensburg, Kansas crying for FEMA trailers.
- You worry about "proportional racial representation" and other dubious statistics.
Hey, call me when the NBA is 60 percent white.
- You think that political polls actually mean something.
Oh, they mean something to the people who conduct them lots of people, myself included, make a living doing things which ultimately serve no good purpose and they mean something to the people who pay for them. But they're wholly inimical to the operation of a government, which is undoubtedly why they're so popular. There is a legitimate means of determining the public's viewpoint: it's called an election. Right now, I'd give serious consideration to any candidate, whether (s)he agrees with me or not on most issues, who says up front "I don't give a damn about the polls."
You believe that I have some obligation to answer your calls.
The ratio of calls worth taking to calls actually received has been so low in recent years, and the "Do Not Call" legislation is so pathetically weak by design, that I installed an overly-complex screening device to keep the number of stray rings as low as possible. If you have to reach me in a hurry, send email, or call my cell. (What? You don't have my cell number? You don't suppose there's a reason for that, do you?)
This list is not intended to be all-inclusive. Of the various bêtes in life, though, these are right up there among the noire-est.
14 May 2007