Anuther Reepublikan Prezidant. Graet.

(This blog is published, first, in phonetic (Fanetik) spelling and only then in standard English spelling. If you wish to skip to the traditionally spelled text (albeit with a few simplifications here and there), click here.)
+
Jon Edwerdz, the oenle elektabool Demakraat, dropt out uv tha Prezidenshal raes yesterdae. Wel, not egzaaktle. Hwut he did wuz "saspend" hiz kaampaen. Thaat kood meen thaat if he tthroez hiz sapaurt tu Oeboma, aand then Klintan aand Oeboma dedlok aat tha kanvenshan, Edwerdz wil be availabool aaz a kompramiez kaandidaet tu win in kanvenshan hwut he kood not win in priemereez dominaetad bi mune aand hiep about tha "histaurik" kaandidase uv a wooman aand a blaak maan. Thaat wood be tha best outkum, aaz I haav sed heer erleeyer. But if eether Klintan aur Oeboma iz nominaetad, tha nekst faur yeerz uv Amairikan histare, aand werld histare, wil be dominaetad bi yet anuther Reepublikan Prezidant. Eevan a Maurman hwiet maan wil beet a wooman aur blaak maan in tha reel Yoonietad Staets, a kuntre thaat iz not the airee-faire, laand uv oepan miendz aand oepan horts thaat sum Demakraats preetend tu se.
+
I liv in a preeponderantle blaak, but midool-klaas, naeberhood in a site, Nuewerk, Nu Jerze, thaat iz 54% blaak. Ouwer maeyer aand a majorite uv tha Site Kounsal or blaak aand/aur Hispaanik. We or saroundad bi dominantle hwiet suberbz. Tho tha kounte oeveraul iz 44% hwiet aand oenle 41% blaak, neerle haaf uv tha kounte's 325,000 blaaks reezied in Nuewerk aloen (151,000), aand aul but 26,000 or in Nuewerk aand tha 5 kloesast-in suberbz (uv 22 toetal myuenisipaaliteez). Ports uv hwiet Esaks haav mountad a siseshan muevmant tu eskaep Esaks Kounte aand faurm thair oen preedominantle hwiet kounte uv West Esaks.
+
Nu Jerze iz wun uv tha bluewast uv blu staets, witth a Demakraatik Guverner aand Demakraatik majoriteez in boetth houzaz uv tha Staet Lejislaecher. But moest hwiet Nu Jerzeeyanz or unkumfartabool living under a blaak maeyer. Thai'r sapoesd tu voet faur a blaak Prezidant? Mene wer aebool aand wiling, if ekstreemle reeluktantle, tu leev Nuewerk (beekauz, daspiet its repyootaeshan, Nuewerk haaz a lot uv wunderfool tthingz, not just faamile ruets, goewing faur it). Tha hwiet-flieterz hu haav fled ouwer siteez or not liekle tu fle the Yoonietad Staets. Hwairaaz it wuz fien tu leev Nuewerk tu a blaak maeyer, hwiet saberbaniets or not liekle tu voet faur a blaak Prezidant. A sens uv daenjer praduesaz a "fiet aur fliet" reespons. If peepool kaan't fle, thae wil fiet.
+
I aam hwiet. I heer hwut hwiet peepool sae. "Niger" iz wun uv tha moest freekwantle uterd werdz in this kuntre, aand "tha blaaks" iz not a term of endeermant. But tha Demakrats wont tu beeleev thaat aul thoez milyanz uv Naurthern hwiets hu fled Nuewerk, Baultimaur, Kleevland, Deetroit, Woshingtan, aand evre uther maejer site nou lorjle blaak wil sudanle chaenj thair spots aand voet faur a blaak Prezidant. I doen't beeleev it.
+
Naur du I beeleev thaat a kuntre thaat reejektad tha soe-kauld "Eekwal Riets Amendmant" faur wiman wil voet faur a wooman Prezidant, espeshale not a wooman so deetestabool, frijid, aand hord aaz Hilare Klintan, in a tiem uv multipool waurz.
+
So ene Reepublikan wil beet eether Barok Oeboma aur Hilare Klintan, sumhwair beetween "haandile" aand "bi a laandslied". The oenle kweschan nou iz hwether it wil be Prezidant MikKaen, Prezidant Romne, aur Prezidant Huckabe.
+
Aat tha moemant, Prezidant MikKaen seemz vere liekle, espeshale if Kaandidaet MikKaen shood chuez eether Jueleeyone aur Hukabe faur Veep, Jueleeyone wood giv Liberal Demakraats a kuver faur thair raesizam aur aante-Raadikal Feminist 'bieyas'. Hukabe wood hortan tha Reepublikan kanservativ baes aand alou them tu voet faur a maan thae jenerale reegord aaz not kanservativ eenuf.
+
Mi prieyer observaeshanz on tha vieyabilite uv kaandidaets haav bin pruevd bi eevents tu be lorjle riet.
+
In eevaalyuewaeting tha vaareeyas Reepublikan kaandidaets, I sed heer on Noevember 17, 2006:

if peepool tthingk tha Protastant eevanjelikalz hu kantroel tha Reepublikan Porte or goewing tu voet faur a proe-abaurshan Itaalyan KAATHALIK frum NU YAURK SITE, thae or halueskinaetin'.

On Morch 5, 2007, hwen Ruedolf Jueleeyone wuz tha sapoezd "fruntruner" faur tha Reepublikan nominaeshan, I sed:

I haav pue-pued heer the iedeeya thaat Ruedolf Jueleeyone iz tha leeding kaandidaet faur tha Reepublikan Portee's nominaeshan faur Prezidant in 2008. The oenle peepool hu kood beeleev ene such tthing or peepool hu noe aulmoest nutthing about Jueleeyone eksept thaat he wuz Maeyer uv Nu Yaurk hwen tha Werld Traed Senter ataaks akerd. But he wuz much maur thaan thaat, aand hiz publik rekerd iz fild witth ietamz thaat bor him frum seereeyas kantenshan faur tha Reepublikan Portee's nominaeshan.

Meedeeya kept telling us thaat Jueleeyone wuz tha fruntruner:

In aan Okt. 19-22 servae Jueleeyone wuz tha chois uv 32 persent uv Reepublikanz naeshanwied, maur thaan dubool tha sapaurt uv hiz neerast rieval, faurmer Tenase Senater Fred Tompsan.

Uv Tompson, I roet heer on September 6tth:

Faurchanatle, Tompsan iz fizikale vere ugle, hwich boedz baadle faur him in this aej uv telavizhan and aan eelektarat thaat iz majorite feemail. Ugle peepool doen't du vere wel in politiks nouwadaez. We wont ouwer politishanz tu be prite peepool, uv boetth seksaz. Hwi els wood Jon Edwerdz spend hundradz uv dolerz on a hairkut, aand Hilare Klintan sho kleeevaj?

Tompsan dropt out uv tha raes Janyuewere 22nd, tthre muntths tu tha dae aafter tha poel thaat shoed him 2d oenle tu Jueleeyone.
+
Aaz faur Jueleeyone agen, on Oktoeber 7, 2007, I roet heer:

But hwi wood Reepublikanz preetend tu wont Ruedolf Jueleeyone? Iz it beekauz thae sens the autthoritaireeyan streek in hiz kaarakter, aand thae wont tu kantinyu tha dounwerd slied uv this Reepublik intu diktaetership? I livd in Jueleeyonee's Nu Yaurk aand kauld him "Muesoeleeyone" beekauz uv hiz diktataureeyal tendanseez. Maebe tha Reepublikan Riet haets tha freedam thae keep proeklaeming thair deevoeshan tu, in "pratest tue much" faashan. But du thae reele wont a proe-gae aand proe-abaurshan diktaeter frum Nu Yaurk Site, tha moest haetad site in tha Naeshan? "Hiemeetoun"? A site apaarantle maur foran thaan Amairikan? I doen't beeleev it.

Yesterdae, Jueleeyone kwit tha raes, haaving akyuemyoolaetad a graand toetal uv wun (1) delagat!
+
Nou, reeterning tu tha Demakraats, I haav sed reepeetadle thaat tha Demakraats or fueling themselvz if thae tthingk the Yoonietad Staets wil eelekt Hilare Klintan aur Barok Oeboma Prezidant. But it wood apeer thaat nutthing kaan shaek Demakrats out uv thair perpechuewal diluezhanal staet, not tha krushing deefeet uv tha ferst "histaurik" nominaeshan uv a feemail kaandidaet faur Vies Prezidant (Jeraldeen Feroro in 1984), not the uter failyer uv tha Demakraats tu kaapitaliez apon publik disgust witth the Eerok Waur in tha 2006 Kangreshanal kaampaen, nutthing. Kaan thae posible be so kampleetle out uv tuch witth reeyaalite? Aur iz sumtthing maur sinister aat werk?
+
Wun must aask — mi kweschanz, not a kwoet frum eneewun els:

Iz tha Demakraatik Porte a shil faur tha Reepublikanz? Or thae a foene porte, a setup, a kon? Du thae taek a diev daliberatle, aulmoest evre eelekshan? (Bil Klintan wuz aan ostensibool Demakraat, but hiz Prezidanse seemd maur Reepublikan than Demakraatik aaz tu polise.) Iz evre eelekshan reele just a poot-up job tu giv tha voeterz the iluezhan thaat we haav tue maejer porteez hwen in faakt we haav but wun, a singgal servant uv tha sueper-rich aand Kaurparat Amairika, operaeting in tue ports thaat waej maek-beeleev waur faur tha voets uv the eelektarat?

It wood seem so. Poleeyaanish optimizam about tha byuetifool, jeneras speerit uv the Amairikan eelektarat koodan't posible serviev dekaedz uv dispruef, hwen selfish, vishasle unfair poliseez enaaktad bi tha Reepublikan majorite in Konggras aand deefendad bi veeto aafter veeto frum a Reepublikan Prezidant, upheld bi tha Reepublikan mienorite eevan aafter tha Demakraats paast, bi a tiene number, intu tha majorite in boetth Houzaz uv Konggras. Shuerle aul the ugleenas uv Gwontonamo aand wuterbaurding aand a waur uv agreshan agenst a kuntre thaat never ataakt us; the aabalishan uv baangkruptse faur tha puer aand midool klaas; the inaakshan tu preevent yuezhuereeyas interest raets frum krushing Amairikanz under a mountan uv det aand saev milyanz frum luezing thair hous tu faurkloezher, wood haav haad tu snaap eevan tha bliendast uv Demakraats out uv thair dreem staet — if it wer a dreem staet.
+
We need anuther maejer porte. Aur we need a graasruets kaampaen tu steel tha Demakraatik Porte out frum under the tthum uv tha rich aand reestaur it tu its popyoolist ruets. Givan tha preeposteras, kumbersam, aand hyuejle ekspensiv priemere proses, houwever, thaat seemz unduewabool. A palitikal porte needz a bilyan dolerz tu run a kaampaen faur Prezidant nouwadaez. This iz anuther wae tha rich keep tha puer aand midool klaas frum haaving ene sae in thair fyuecher: just run up tha kausts uv eelekshanz tu such aastranominkal levalz thaat no wun but tha porteez under tha kantroel uv tha rich haav tha slietast chaans uv wining eether tha Hwiet Hous aur Konggras. It's a traajade. We haav laust ouwer damokrase, aand thair iz no indikaeshan thaat eneetthing kaan be dun tu reestaur it.
+
Hwut duz thaat leev us, tha puer, tha midool klaas krusht bi det aand a Sistam thaat duzan't kair? Vieyalans.
+
(Tha kerant Y.S. militere detth toel in Eerok, akaurding tu tha websiet "Eerok Koewalishan Kaazhuewalteez", iz 3,943 — faur Izreeyal.)
+
Another Republican President. Great.
+
John Edwards, the only electable Democrat, dropped out of the Presidential race yesterday. Well, not exactly. What he did was "suspend" his campaign. That could mean that if he throws his support to Obama, and then Clinton and Obama deadlock at the convention, Edwards will be available as a compromise candidate to win in convention what he could not win in primaries dominated by money and hype about the "historic" candidacy of a woman and a black man. That would be the best outcome, as I have said here earlier. But if either Clinton or Obama is nominated, the next four years of American history, and world history, will be dominated by yet another Republican President. Even a Mormon white man will beat a woman or black man in the real United States, a country that is not the airy-fairy, land of open minds and open hearts that some Democrats pretend to see.
+
I live in a preponderantly black, but middle-class, neighborhood in a city, Newark, New Jersey, that is 54% black. Our mayor and a majority of the City Council are black and/or Hispanic. We are surrounded by dominantly white suburbs. Tho the county overall is 44% white and only 41% black, nearly half of the county's 325,000 blacks reside in Newark alone (151,000), and all but 26,000 are in Newark and the 5 closest-in suburbs (of 22 total municipalities). Parts of white Essex have mounted a secession movement to escape Essex County and form their own predominantly white county of West Essex.
+
New Jersey is one of the bluest of blue states, with a Democratic Governor and Democratic majorities in both houses of the State Legislature. But most white New Jerseyans are uncomfortable living under a black mayor. They're supposed to vote for a black President? Many were able and willing, if extremely reluctantly, to leave Newark (because, despite its reputation, Newark has a lot of wonderful things, not just family roots, going for it). The white-fliters who have fled our cities are not likely to flee the United States. Whereas it was fine to leave Newark to a black mayor, white suburbanites are not likely to vote for a black President. A sense of danger produces a "fite or flite" response. If people can't flee, they will fite.
+
I am white. I hear what white people say. "Nigger" is one of the most frequently uttered words in this country, and "the blacks" is not a term of endearment. But the Democrats want to believe that all those millions of Northern whites who fled Newark, Baltimore, Cleveland, Detroit, Washington, and every other major city now largely black will suddenly change their spots and vote for a black President. I don't believe it.
+
Nor do I believe that a country that rejected the so-called "Equal Rights Amendment" for women will vote for a woman President, especially not a woman so detestable, frigid, and hard as Hillary Clinton, in a time of multiple wars.
+
So any Republican will beat either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton, somewhere between "handily" and "by a landslide". The only question now is whether it will be President McCain, President Romney, or President Huckabee.
+
At the moment, President McCain seems very likely, especially if Candidate McCain should choose either Giuliani or Huckabee for Veep. Giuliani would give Liberal Democrats a cover for their racism or anti-Radical Feminist 'bias'. Huckabee would hearten the Republican conservative base and allow them to vote for a man they generally regard as not conservative enuf.
+
My prior observations on the viability of candidates have been proved by events to be largely right.
+
In evaluating the various Republican candidates, I said here on November 17, 2006:

if people think the Protestant evangelicals who control the Republican Party are going to vote for a pro-abortion Italian CATHOLIC from NEW YORK CITY, they are halluskinatin'.

On March 5, 2007, when Rudolph Giuliani was the supposed "frontrunner" for the Republican nomination, I said:

I have pooh-poohed here the idea that Rudolph Giuliani is the leading candidate for the Republican Party's nomination for President in 2008. The only people who could believe any such thing are people who know almost nothing about Giuliani except that he was Mayor of New York when the World Trade Center attacks occurred. But he was much more than that, and his public record is filled with items that bar him from serious contention for the Republican Party's nomination.

Media kept telling us that Giuliani was the frontrunner:

In an Oct. 19-22 survey Giuliani was the choice of 32 percent of Republicans nationwide, more than double the support of his nearest rival, former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson.

Of Thompson, I wrote here on September 6th:

Fortunately, Thompson is physically very ugly, which bodes badly for him in this age of television and an electorate that is majority female. Ugly people don't do very well in politics nowadays. We want our politicians to be pretty people, of both sexes. Why else would John Edwards spend hundreds of dollars on a haircut, and Hillary Clinton show cleavage?

Thompson dropped out of the race January 22nd, three months to the day after the poll that showed him 2d only to Giuliani.
+
As for Giuliani again, on October 7, 2007, I wrote here:

But why would Republicans pretend to want Rudolph Giuliani? Is it because they sense the authoritarian streak in his character, and they want to continue the downward slide of this Republic into dictatorship? I lived in Giuliani's New York and called him "Mussoliani" because of his dictatorial tendencies. Maybe the Republican Right hates the freedom they keep proclaiming their devotion to, in "protest too much" fashion. But do they really want a pro-gay and pro-abortion dictator from New York City, the most hated city in the Nation? "Hymietown"? A city apparently more foreign than American? I don't believe it.

Yesterday, Giuliani quit the race, having accumulated a grand total of one (1) delegate!
+
Now, returning to the Democrats, I have said repeatedly that the Democrats are fooling themselves if they think the United States will elect Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama President. But it would appear that nothing can shake Democrats out of their perpetual delusional state, not the crushing defeat of the first "historic" nomination of a female candidate for Vice President (Geraldine Ferraro in 1984), not the utter failure of the Democrats to capitalize upon public disgust with the Iraq War in the 2006 Congressional campaign, nothing. Can they possibly be so completely out of touch with reality? Or is something more sinister at work?
+
One must ask — my questions, not a quote from anyone else:

Is the Democratic Party a shill for the Republicans? Are they a phony party, a setup, a con? Do they take a dive deliberately, almost every election? (Bill Clinton was an ostensible Democrat, but his Presidency seemed more Republican than Democratic as to policy.) Is every election really just a put-up job to give the voters the illusion that we have two major parties when in fact we have but one, a single servant of the super-rich and Corporate America, operating in two parts that wage make-believe war for the votes of the electorate?

It would seem so. Pollyannish optimism about the beautiful, generous spirit of the American electorate couldn't possibly survive decades of disproof, when selfish, viciously unfair policies enacted by the Republican majority in Congress and defended by veto after veto from a Republican President, upheld by the Republican minority even after the Democrats passed, by a tiny number, into the majority in both Houses of Congress. Surely all the ugliness of Guantanamo and waterboarding and a war of aggression against a country that never attacked us; the abolition of bankruptcy for the poor and middle class; the inaction to prevent usurious interest rates from crushing Americans under a mountain of debt and save millions from losing their house to foreclosure, would have had to snap even the blindest of Democrats out of their dream state — if it were a dream state.
+
We need another major party. Or we need a grassroots campaign to steal the Democratic Party out from under the thumb of the rich and restore it to its populist roots. Given the preposterous, cumbersome, and hugely expensive primary process, however, that seems undoable. A political party needs a billion dollars to run a campaign for President nowadays. This is another way the rich keep the poor and middle class from having any say in their future: just run up the costs of elections to such astronomical levels that no one but the parties under the control of the rich have the slitest chance of winning either the White House or Congress. It's a tragedy. We have lost our democracy, and there is no indication that anything can be done to restore it.
+
What does that leave us, the poor, the middle class crushed by debt and a System that doesn't care? Violence.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 3,943 — for Israel.)

- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 9:05 PM

 
Oepan Leter tu Jon Edwerdz

(This blog is published, first, in phonetic (Fanetik) spelling and only then in standard English spelling. If you wish to skip to the traditionally spelled text (albeit with a few simplifications here and there), click here.)
+
I sent tha foloewing mesaj bi feedbaak faurm tu the Edwerdz kaampaen tooniet.

IT'S PERSANAL DET, YUEZHARE, AAND BAANGKRUPTSE, STUEPID

I aam vere kansernd thaat the Demakraatik Porte iz luezing its miend tu diluezhanal tthingking agen, aand thaat neether Hilare Klintan naur Barok Oeboma iz eelektabool, unles tha Reepublikanz go eekwale kraez aand nominaet a Maurman, hu iz eekwale uneelektabool. Wood a ttherd-porte kaandidaet, Nu Yaurk Site's Juewish maeyer, giv us a ttherd unaakseptabool chois? Hwut haapanz if boetth maejer porteez, aur tthre prezidenshal porteez, giv tha peepool kaandidaets thae deetest? Du voeterz stae hoem in droevz? Du thae get out thair gunz?
+
Yu or probable the oenle Demakraat reemaening in tha raes hu haaz a reel chaans uv not oenle wining tha Hwiet Hous but aulso bringing in a waev uv Demakraatik Repreezentativz aand Senaterz tu empouwer tha Prezidant aakchuewale tu enaakt a lejislaetiv proegraam. Yu kaan kaare tha Soutth, unles yu silekt Oeboma aur Hilare aaz Veep. If yu silekt Bil Richerdsan aaz Veep, yu kaan kaare tha Hispaanik voet, bigtiem.
+
But yu woen't get thaat chaans unles yu speek tu hwut iz tha moest impaurtant ishu faur the eelektarat this tiem, aaz it wuz tha laast tiem. In 2004, Demakraats reefyuezed tu speek tu persanal det, tha faakt thaat tha tipikal Amairikan faamile iz in hok up tu thair iebaulz, aand beeying krusht under yuezhuereeyas interest raets thae kaanot eskaep beekauz tha Reepublikanz paast baankruptse "reefaurm" thaat preezervd baankruptse baesikle oenle faur kaurparaeshanz, so thae kood eskaep laeber kontraakts aand penshan aand heltthkair obligaeshanz, hwiel maeking it aulmoest kampleetle unavailabool tu aurdinere peepool.
+
Duering yaur run faur the Hwiet Hous witth Jon Kere, I chekt tha kaampaen'z websiet aand did aan eelektronik serch faur tha werdz "det", "yuezhare", aand "baangkruptse". No such werdz apeerd on tha hoem paej aur links tu subpaejaz on thaat siet. Agen in 2006, I sercht faur thoez werdz in tha websiet faur the DNK, aand agen did not fiend them. I roet tu the DNK, Senater Kenade, aand sum uther leederz tu sae thaat if thae did not adres persanal det, yuezhare, aand baangkruptse, thae riskt luezing tu tha Reepublikanz agen, aur aat leest luezing the abilite tu set the ajenda faur tha nekst Konggras. Thae did not aanser, thae did not adres thoez kansernz, aand thae 'wun' a morjin uv kantroel oever Konggras so flimze thaat thae wer aabsaluetle unaebool tu du a daamd tthing faur tha Amairikan peepool. Thae didan't eevan atempt tu undu tha baangkruptse "reefaurm" paast bi tha Reepublikanz, thaat haaz traapt 40 milyan Amairikanz in krushing det aat yuezhuereeyas interest raets. Pleez doen't maek tha saem mistaek agen.
+
I yuezd tha serch fungkshan witthin yaur websiet aand sercht faur "det", "yuezhare", aand "baangkruptse". Sum tthingz about "det" aand "baangkruptse" did apeer, but (a) mene wer dueplikats, (b) tha menshanz uv "det" aand "baangkruptse" wer not prominant aand tha ferst reepaurtad reezults reelaetad oenle tu reefaurming baangkrupse lauz aaz reegordz tha vaalyu uv maurgajaz, not the jeneral unavailabilite uv reel baankruptse tu aurdinere peepool, aand (c) theez werdz aand the apaulingle horsh reeyaaliteez beehiend them du not konstituet eether tha sentral naur eevan a maejer theem uv yaur kaampaen.
+
Serchas faur "yuezhare" aand "yuezhuereeyas" on yaur websiet did not pradues a singgal reezult. Not WUN. Or yu just unawair thaat tha reezan peepool kaan't get out uv det iz thaat the interest raets chorjd or outlaandish? Yu prapoez permiting hieyer interest raets oenle on fyuecher perchasez, but du not prapoez a naashanal yuezhare lau. Hwi not?
+
I noe yu or rich nou, but yu or not sapoezd tu be bliend tu tha horsh eekanomik reeyaaliteez uv tha "litool peepool" hu or drouning in det.
+
I chekt tha websietz uv the Oeboma aand Klintan kaampaenz.
+
In boetth the Oeboma aand Klintan websiets, tha werdz "det", "yuezhare" aand "baangkruptse" du not apeer on tha hoem paej, naur iz thair a serch boks bi meenz uv hwich tu fiend thoez ishuez. The "Ishuez" dropdoun menyu duez not sho ene uv thoez werdz eether.
+
Or theez peepool frum anuther plaanat? Haav thae bin so rich faur so laung thaat thae haav no iedeeya thaat this Naeshan iz drouning in det? Eevan Boosh understaandz thaat peepool or so hevile in det thaat thae kannot spend the eekoname out uv reeseshan. But nun uv tha Demakraats understaandz thaat? Hwut iz raung witth yu peepool?
+
"It's persanal det, yuezhare, aand baankruptse, stuepid."
+
(Tha kerant Y.S. militere detth toel in Eerok, akaurding tu tha websiet "Eerok Koewalishan Kaazhuewalteez", iz 3,940 — faur Izreeyal.)

An Open Letter to John Edwards. I sent the following message by feedback form to the Edwards campaign tonite.

"IT'S PERSONAL DEBT, USURY, AND BANKRUPTCY, STUPID"

I am very concerned that the Democratic Party is losing its mind to delusional thinking again, and that neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama is electable, unless the Republicans go equally crazy and nominate a Mormon, who is equally unelectable. Would a third-party candidate, New York City's Jewish mayor, give us a third unacceptable choice? What happens if both major parties, or three presidential parties, give the people candidates they detest? Do voters stay home in droves? Do they get out their guns?
+
You are probably the only Democrat remaining in the race who has a real chance of not only winning the White House but also bringing in a wave of Democratic Representatives and Senators to empower the President actually to enact a legislative program. You can carry the South, unless you select Obama or Hillary as Veep. If you select Bill Richardson as Veep, you can carry the Hispanic vote, bigtime.
+
But you won't get that chance unless you speak to what is the most important issue for the electorate this time, as it was the last time. In 2004, Democrats refused to speak to personal debt, the fact that the typical American family is in hock up to their eyeballs, and being crushed under usurious interest rates they cannot escape because the Republicans passed bankruptcy "reform" that preserved bankruptcy basically only for corporations, so they could escape labor contracts and pension and healthcare obligations, while making it almost completely unavailable to ordinary people.
+
During your run for the White House with John Kerry, I checked the campaign's website and did an electronic search for the words "debt", "usury", and "bankruptcy". No such words appeared on the home page or links to subpages on that site. Again in 2006, I searched for those words in the website for the DNC, and again did not find them. I wrote to the DNC, Senator Kennedy, and some other leaders to say that if they did not address personal debt, usury, and bankruptcy, they risked losing to the Republicans again, or at least losing the ability to set the agenda for the next Congress. They did not answer, they did not address those concerns, and they 'won' a margin of control over Congress so flimsy that they were absolutely unable to do a damned thing for the American people. They didn't even attempt to undo the bankruptcy "reform" passed by the Republicans, that has trapped 40 million Americans in crushing debt at usurious interest rates. Please don't make the same mistake again.
+
I used the search function within your website and searched for "debt", "usury", and "bankruptcy". Some things about "debt" and "bankruptcy" did appear, but (a) many were duplicates, (b) the mentions of "debt" and "bankruptcy" were not prominent and the first reported results related only to reforming bankruptcy laws as regards the value of mortgages, not the general unavailability of real bankruptcy to ordinary people, and (c) these words and the appallingly harsh realities behind them do not constitute either the central nor even a major theme of your campaign.
+
Searches for "usury" and "usurious" on your website did not produce a single result. Not ONE. Are you just unaware that the reason people can't get out of debt is that the interest rates charged are outlandish? You propose permitting higher interest rates only on future purchases, but do not propose a national usury law. Why not?
+
I know you are rich now, but you are not supposed to be blind to the harsh economic realities of the "little people" who are drowning in debt.
+
I checked the websites of the Obama and Clinton campaigns.
+
In both the Obama and Clinton websites, the words "debt", "usury" and "bankruptcy" do not appear on the home page, nor is there a search box by means of which to find those issues. The "Issues" dropdown menu does not show any of those words either.
+
Are these people from another planet? Have they been so rich for so long that they have no idea that this Nation is drowning in debt? Even Bush understands that people are so heavily in debt that they cannot spend the economy out of recession. But none of the Democrats understands that? What is wrong with you people?
+
"It's personal debt, usury, and bankruptcy, stupid."

- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 8:58 PM

 
Mispranunseeyaeshanz Evreehwair.
+
(This blog is published, first, in phonetic (Fanetik) spelling and only then in standard English spelling. If you wish to skip to the traditionally spelled text (albeit with a few simplifications here and there), click here.)
+
[Reeviezd 1/18/08 tu adres, in a "P.S.", mispranunseeyaeshanz uv "macho", "machismo", and "Nevada".]
+
Peepool puzoold bi mi insistans on rieting this blog fanetikle uv laet du not apreesheeyaet hou much trubool tha tradishanal speling uv Ingglish kauzaz. In reesant daez I haav maed a shaurt list uv mispranunseeyaeshanz I haav herd on telavizhan, frum peepool hu shood noe beter. Tha vietamin suplamant Wun a Dae Waet Smort Aadvaanst iz aadvertiezing on telavizhan. The feemail anounser sez it nou kantaenz ga.rón.a (faur "guarana"). No, it kantaenz gwòr.a.nóq.
+
Kristafer Maatthyuez on his kaebool TV sho Hordbaul yesterdae sed ferst ka.làe.da.skóp.ik aand then ka.láe.da.skòep faur "kaleidoscopic" aand "kaleidoscope". He misred the EI aaz repreezenting a laung-A. O, EI kaan repreezent a laung-A sound (reign, vein, weigh). But not in "kaleidoscope". Hou iz wun tu noe?
+
Tha naaraeter uv a dokyoomentare about Kortthaj on kaebool chaanal Histare Internaashanal sed ba.léer.ik faur tha "Balearic" Ielandz: bòl.ee.yór.ik.
+
Tha naaraeter on tha Graet Waul episoed uv tha Traaval Chaanal'z seereez Wauking tha Werld reepeetadle mispranounst "Uighur" aaz yúe.ger, hairaaz it iz aakchuewale tu be pranounst wée.goor aur, maur simple in Ingglish, wée.ger. Thaat so eeritaetad me thaat I ternd tha sho auf.
+
Thair or mene werdz in hwich aulternat pranunseeyaeshanz or rekagniezd bi maejer dikshanereez, but nun uv tha werdz abuv haaz ene such alternat pranunseeyaeshan. If yu or goewing tu yuez on telavizhan a werd yau'r not aabsaluetle shuer uv, aand espeshale if yu haav tu yuez it reepeetadle aur in a plaes, liek a kamershal, hwair it wil be herd agen aand agen, look it up! Iz thaat tue much tu aask? Apaarantle it iz.
+
If we haad a fanetik speling sistam, liek Fanetik, yu woodan't haav tu look ene werd up, beekauz tha speling wood autamaatikale tel yu, unaambigyuewasle, hou tu pranouns it. But peepool preetend we doen't need ene such speling sistam. We kaan aulwaez look tthingz up. But (a) mene werdz or shoen bi dikshanereez tu haav maur thaan wun pranunseeyaeshan, so hou or yu tu noe hwich iz preeferd bi ejookaetad peepool? aand (b) aaz shoen bi the egzaampoolz abuv, peepool oenle rairle aakchuewale du look up eneetthing.
+
(Tha kerant Y.S. militere detth toel in Eerok, akaurding tu tha websiet "Eerok Koewalishan Kaazhuewalteez", iz 3,926 — faur Izreeyal.)
+
P.S. Aafter I uploedad tha diskushan abuv, I wocht tha Laet Laet Sho witth Kreg Fergasan aand herd Fergasan sae máa.cho faur "macho", aand hiz gest, Traes Aadkinz, sae ma.kéez.mo faur "machismo". Fergasan haaz aan ekskyues, in thaat boetth uv thoez pranunseeyaeshanz or Britisizamz, aand Fergasan wuz raezd in Skotland. But Aadkinz iz frum tha Y.S. Soutth, so haaz no reezan tu pranouns a Spaanish werd in aan Itaalyan faashan. Tha proper pranunseeyaeshanz, in Ingglish, or móch.o aand mo.chéez.mo.
+
I aulso reememberd thaat NBK Nietle Nuez, braudkaasting frum Los Vaegas, aakchuewale aird a nuez reepaurt about peepool frum tha staet uv Navoda kamplaening thaat outsiederz pranouns tha naem uv thaat staet in tha proper faashan, witth a braud Spaanish-A (saem aaz Ingglish shaurt-O) faur tha strest silabool: na.vód.a. Sum Navoda yohuez get hyuejle indignant aat nuezkaasterz aand such hu du not sae thair preferans, na.váad.a. I haav nuez faur Navoda yohuez: yu du not kantroel the Ingglish laanggwaj — aand never wil.
+
"Nevada" (meening "snoe-kuverd") iz frum SPAANISH, aand iz givan tha reespektfool semee-Spaanish pranunseeyaeshan na.vód.a bi ejookaetad peepool aul around tha werld. In liek faashan, peepool frum "Oregon" hu sae ór.a.gan shood not be upset if much uv tha werld seez thaat speling aaz beeying pranounst áu.ra.gòn.
+
Loekalz du not kantroel tha pranunseeyaeshan uv thair loekaalite bi peepool akraus the Ingglish-speeking werld. We du not, aafter aul, sae nu yauk just bekauz sum naetiv Nu Yaurkerz drop the R. Naur du we sae nu jói.ze just beekauz a vaanishing fyu Naurtth Jerzeeyanz sae thaat.
+
Hou mene peepool speek Ingglish? reed it? The aanserz or hord tu be shuer uv, in thaat thair or aat ene givan tiem sumtthing liek a bilyan peepool trieying tu lern tha laanggwaj aur impruev thair Ingglish. Wun websiet estimaets thaat tha number uv peepool kaepabool uv yuezing Ingglish tu reed tthingz on the Internet iz oever 2 bilyan! Tha British Kounsal estimaets thair or 750 milyan, aand groewing. (Tha British Kounsal iz a kwozee-guvernmental kaurparaeshan thaat, amung uther tthingz, teechaz British Ingglish in 53 kuntreez. The Yoonietad Staets Guvernmant haaz a similer proegraam, the Aufis uv Ingglish Laanggwaj Proegraamz, tu teech karekt (thaat iz, [Naurtth] Amairikan) Ingglish.
+
Bi kontraast, thair or 2.5 milyan peepool in Navoda, not aul uv huem speek Ingglish. 2.5 milyan iz 1/3 uv 1% uv tha loewer estimat faur peepool around tha werld hu kaan reed Ingglish, aand 0.13% uv tha hieyer figyer. Thaat tiene gruep iz NOT, reepeet NOT, goewing tu diktate tu tha 99 2/3% aur 99.87%, hou Ingglish iz pranounst.
+
Mauroever, a faurtth uv Navodanz or Hispaanik! Miet Hispaanik Navodanz be indignant thaat Aanggloez mispranouns "Nevada"? Maebe thae need tu speek up aand tel Aanglo yohuez it shood be sed, in Ingglish, na.vód.a!
+
"Armada" wuz faur senchereez pranounst or.máe.da in Ingglish, hwich it enterd, frum Spaanish, around 1530. Then, aaz Inggland beekaem les insyooler aand the Yoonietad Staets beekaem intimat witth Laatin Amairika, aand espeshale Meksiko, tha kerant Spaanish-stieyal pranunseeyaeshan or.mód.a grajoowale reeplaest the oelder pranunseeyaeshan, aultho Dikshanere.kom stil shoez or.máe.da aaz aan aulternat pranunseeyaeshan. Kyuereeyasly, tha Kaembrij Dikshanereez websiet duz not sho eneetthing but tha Spaanish-stieyal pranunseeyaeshan.
+
Thair or, it iz tru, a lot uv werdz frum Spaanish, liek "rodeo", thaat haav bin ttherale aanglisiezd, aand not disreespektfoole tu Spaanish. Noet, houwever, thaat "Rodeo Drive" in Beverle Hilz taeks a maur-Spaanish pranunseeyaeshan, roe.dáe.yo. (The aaakchuewal Spaanish pranunseeyaeshan iz roe.tháe.yo.)
+
Thaat sum Kolarodanz disliek a Spaanish-stieyal pranunseeyaeshan faur thair staet aand thaat sum Navodanz beekum fyuereeyas aat a Spaanish-stieyal pranunseeyaeshan faur thair staet iz uv absoluetle no impaurtans. Yu doen't liek yaur staet's haaving a Spaanish naem? Chaenj tha staet's naem! But aaz laung aaz yu du haav a Spaanish naem, doen't be serpriezd thaat ejookaetad peepool aul oever this plaanat se it aaz Spaanish aand pranouns it akaurdingle.
+
Mispronunciations Everywhere.
+
[Revised 1/18/08 to address, in a "P.S.", mispronunciations of "macho", "machismo", and "Nevada".]
+
People puzzled by my insistence on writing this blog phonetically of late do not appreciate how much trouble the traditional spelling of English causes. In recent days I have made a short list of mispronunciations I have heard on television, from people who should know better. The vitamin supplement One a Day Weight Smart Advanced is advertising on television. The female announcer says it now contains ga.rón.a (for "guarana"). No, it contains gwòr.a.nóq.
+
Christopher Matthews on his cable TV show Hardball yesterday said first ka.làe.da.skóp.ik and then ka.láe.da.skòep for "kaleidoscopic" and "kaleidoscope". He misread the EI as representing a long-A. Oh, EI can represent a long-A sound (reign, vein, weigh). But not in "kaleidoscope". How is one to know?
+
The narrator of a documentary about Carthage on cable channel History International said ba.léer.ik for the Balearic Islands: bòl.ee.yór.ik.
+
The narrator on the Great Wall episode of the Travel Channel's series Walking the World repeatedly mispronounced "Uighur" as yúe.ger, whereas it is actually to be pronounced wée.goor or, more simply in English, wée.ger. That so irritated me that I turned the show off.
+
There are many words in which alternate pronunciations are recognized by major dictionaries, but none of the words above has any such alternate pronunciation. If you are going to use on television a word you're not absolutely sure of, and especially if you have to use it repeatedly or in a place, like a commercial, where it will be heard again and again, look it up! Is that too much to ask? Apparently it is.
+
If we had a phonetic spelling system, like Fanetik, you wouldn't have to look any word up, because the spelling would automatically tell you, unambiguously, how to pronounce it. But people pretend we don't need any such spelling system. We can always look things up. But (a) many words are shown by dictionaries to have more than one pronunciation, so how are you to know which is preferred by educated people? and (b) as shown by the examples above, people only rarely actually do look up anything.
+
P.S. After I uploaded the discussion above, I watched the Late Late Show with Craig Ferguson and heard Ferguson say máa.cho for "macho", and his guest, Trace Adkins, say ma.kéez.mo for "machismo". Ferguson has an excuse, in that both of those pronunciations are Briticisms, and Ferguson was raised in Scotland. But Adkins is from the U.S. South, so has no reason to pronounce a Spanish word in an Italian fashion. The proper pronunciations, in English, are móch.o and mo.chéez.mo.
+
I also remembered that NBC Nightly News, broadcasting from Las Vegas, actually aired a news report about people from the state of Nevada complaining that outsiders pronounce the name of that state in the proper fashion, with a broad Spanish-A (same as English short-O) for the stressed syllable: na.vód.a. Some Nevada yahoos get hugely indignant at newscasters and such who do not say their preference, na.váad.a. I have news for Nevada yahoos: you do not control the English language — and never will.
+
"Nevada" (meaning "snow-covered") is from SPANISH, and is given the respectful semi-Spanish pronunciation na.vód.a by educated people all around the world. In like fashion, people from "Oregon" who say ór.a.gan should not be upset if much of the world sees that spelling as being pronounced áu.ra.gòn.
+
Locals do not control the pronunciation of their locality by people across the English-speaking world. We do not, after all, say nu yauk just because some native New Yorkers drop the R. Nor do we say nu jói.ze just because a vanishing few North Jerseyans say that.
+
How many people speak English? read it? The answers are hard to be sure of, in that there are at any given time something like a billion people trying to learn the language or improve their English. One website estimates that the number of people capable of using English to read things on the Internet is over two billion! The British Council estimates there are 750 million, and growing. (The British Council is a quasi-governmental corporation that, among other things, teaches British English in 53 countries. The United States Government has a similar program, the Office of English Language Programs, to teach correct (that is, [North] American) "English".)
+
By contrast, there are 2.5 million people in Nevada, not all of whom speak English. 2.5 million is 1/3 of 1% of the lower estimate for people around the world who can read English, and 0.13% of the higher figure. That tiny group is NOT, repeat NOT, going to dictate to the 99 2/3% or 99.87% how English is pronounced.
+
Moreover, a fourth of Nevadans are Hispanic! Might Hispanic Nevadans be indignant that Anglos mispronounce "Nevada"? Maybe they need to speak up and tell Anglo yahoos it should be said, in English, na.vód.a!
+
"Armada" was for centuries pronounced or.máe.da in English, which it entered, from Spanish, around 1530. Then, as England became less insular and the United States became intimate with Latin America, and especially Mexico, the current Spanish-style pronunciation or.mód.a gradually replaced the older pronunciation, altho Dictionary.com still shows or.máe.da as an alternate pronunciation. Curiously, the Cambridge Dictionaries website does not show anything but the Spanish-style pronunciation.
+
There are, it is true, a lot of words from Spanish, like "rodeo", that have been thoroughly anglicized, and not disrespectfully to Spanish. Note, however, that "Rodeo Drive" in Beverly Hills takes a more-Spanish pronunciation, roe.dáe.yo. (The actual Spanish pronunciation is roe.tháe.yo.) That some Coloradans dislike a Spanish-style pronunciation for their state and that some Nevadans become furious at a Spanish-style pronunciation for their state is of absolutely no importance. You don't like your state's having a Spanish name? Change the state's name! But as long as you do have a Spanish name, don't be surprised that educated people all over this planet see it as Spanish and pronounce it accordingly.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 3,926 — for Israel.)

- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 11:59 PM

 
Hilare Klintan's Aakchuewal Bieyografe; Deefending Agenst Raadikal Feminist Taekoever

(This blog is published, first, in phonetic (Fanetik) spelling and only then in standard English spelling. If you wish to skip to the traditionally spelled text (albeit with a few simplifications here and there), click here.)
+
In tha Nu Haampsher deebaet, Msz. Klintan daird tu sae, in a fit uv peek, "I'm not just runing on a promis uv chaenj, I'm runing on 35 yeerz uv chaenj." O? Her afishal bieyografe on the Hwiet Hous websiet sez no such tthing. She haaz no guvernmant servis aat aul in her paast, no eelektad naur apointad aufis, until she beekaem a korpatbaager Senater in Nu Yaurk, a staet witth hwich she haad no prieyer kontacts uv konsakwans. She haaz servd wun term aand wun yeer in tha Senat. Thaat iz tha fool ekstent uv her guvernmant servis. Aaz Ferst Laede duering tha Klintan yeerz, she maed a fyu goodwil trips. Big deel. She wuz a lauyer aand werkd in sum plezant litool kauzas, such aaz tha Childran'z Deefens Fund. Nun uv her werk faur thoez kauzaz ifektad ene kiend uv palitikal chaenj. In tha wun tthing she wuz aaskt tu du in reegord tu chaenj in a signifikant publik aireeya, yueniversal heltthkair, she poot faurwerd a prapoezal thaat wuz so feersle ataakt thaat she reetreetad frum it instantle aand didan't eevan tri tu deefend it, much les enaakt it. So hwen Hilare Klintan sez thaat she haaz bin kreeyaeting chaenj faur 35 yeerz, she iz, in shaurt, a maasive, braezan lieyer.
+
Msz. Klintan iz not entietoold tu klaem kredit faur Bil Klintan'z ekspeereeyans, unles she iz reegordad aaz port uv the saem leegal persan witth her huzband, in hwich kaes she iz not elijibool tu run faur Prezidant, beekauz thaat persan haaz aulrede bin Prezidant faur tue fool termz. Hwi iz Hilare Klintan elijibool tu run faur Prezidant if tha reel Prezidant if she iz eelektad wil be not Hilare but Bil?
+
Hilare haaz klaemd, in ifekt, thaat she wuz saurt uv "koe-Prezidant" faur Bil'z tue termz. Woodan't thaat meen thaat Bil wood be "koe-Prezidant" witth Hilare if she iz eelektad? He iz not ENTIETOOLD tu be koe-Prezidant beekauz he iz not konstitueshanale permitad tu be Prezidant. Tha Klintanz or plaenle trieying tu siedstep tha Konstitueshan'z baan on eneewun serving maur thaan tue termz aaz Prezidant bi pooting tha Hwiet Hous in tha wief's naem. Buf if tha reel oener uv tha hous iz tha huzband, we haav aan obligaeshan tu se paast tha sharaed tu tha reeyaalite: the Klintanz or trieying tu maek aan end run around tha 22nd Amendmant.
+
Msz. Klintan thus needz tu reekansider her klaem tu haav bin "koe-Prezidant" witth her huzband duering hiz tue termz in aufis. But her apoenants shood taek thaat klaem vere seereeyasle, aand su in Federal kaurt tu haav her bord frum tha raes faur tha Hwiet Hous on tha ground that this iz a vere tthinle vaild atempt tu poot Bil Klintan intu the Prezidanse faur a ttherd (aand faurtth?) term.
+
Aaz faur Hilare's tthin viktare — 3 persentaj points — in Nu Haampsher, hwich meedeeya maed intu aan eenaurmas trieyumf, thaat entieyer 3-point aadvaantaj wuz due tu wiman voeting faur a wooman oenle beekauz she iz a wooman. If wiman misyuez tha voet thaat wae, men or perfaktle kaepabool uv taeking the voet awae frum wiman. Feminists wil laaf aat such a sagjeschan, but tha voet wuz a gift frum men. Wimen didan't ern it. It wuz givan tu them. Hwut wuz givan kaan be taekan awae.
+
Tha preetens thaat histare muevz in oenle wun direkshan, taurd ever wieder enfraanchiezmant, iz ilojikal. Histare muevz in aul saurts uv direkshanz, aufan in penjalum faashan. In tha werld aat lorj, Komyoonizam maed the klaem tu be "Tha Waev uv the Fyuecher", aand agresiv Komyoonist waurz aand reepreshanz around tha werld kild 110 milyan peepool tu kreeyaet thaat fyuecher, acheeving fool aur porshal taekoever uv neerle wun-faurtth uv tha plaanat's aireeya aand popyoolaeshan. A faurm uv palitikal Komyoonizam maentainz kantroel oever wun-fiftth uv this plaanat's popyoolaeshan, sapaurtad bi hyuej traed defisits frum the Y.S. aand Yuerap, aand thair or stil Komyoonist gerila waurz in Laatin Amairika aand ports uv Aezha, but no wun ene laungger feerz a werldwied Komyoonist taekoever.
+
Hwen tthingz go tue for in wun direkshan, a karekshan, in the opasit direkshan, aufan reezults. Aaz a sasieyate, we or reetthingking divaurs on deemand; we haav reezistad abaurshan on deemaand aand the leegalizaeshan uv drugz. Tha Federal Guvernmant haas undun staet atempts tu leegaliez "medikal" maarihwona, aand a naashanal iedentite kord, laung reezistad aaz aan inkerzhan on baesik riets, iz about tu be enaaktad in tha faurm uv a Federale maandaetad 'sikyuer' staet driever's liesans. In this "laand uv tha fre", sitizenz or sercht hwen thae tri tu enter a guvernmant bilding aur airplaen. Aand peepool aaksept ever graeter reestrikshanz on thair sivil liberteez in tha naem uv "sakyuerite" in tha "Waur on Terer". The FKK iz mueving tu alou fyuewer aand fyuewer megakaurparaeshanz tu bie up maur aand maur raedeeyo aand TV staeshanz, reeduesing vyuewer chois aand naaroewing tha raenj uv apinyanz we wil heer. Tha fyuecher iz looking tu be not freeyer thaan tha paast, but les fre. So in aat leest sum waez, histare iz goewing the opasit uv hwut we wuns ekspektad.
+
Ene aakt uv ene lejislaecher kaan be reeverst. Ene pravizhan uv tha Konstitueshan kaan be amendad awae. Aand wiman du not fiet faur thair riets. Thae hwien faur thair 'riets'. Aat end, men doen't haav tu heed such hwiening. Benazeer Bueto diskuverd thaat men or not helplas agenst feemail pouwer grabz, aand aul wiman, aul oever tha werld, must reemember thaat asaasinaeshan, tha trieyumf uv tha feersle aantee-feminist Taalibaan in tha yeerz foloewing tha witthdrauqal uv tha Soeveeyat Yuenyan frum Aafgaanistaan, aand uther "setbaaks" tu Raadikal Feminizam. Men or not helplas tu deefend themselvz frum feemail taekoever, aand vieyalant reevoelt iz the ultimat deefens agenst Raadikal Feminizam.
+
Raadikal Feminists, hu wont tu reevers bieyolaje aand tthouzandz uv yeerz uv sivilizaeshan tu poot wiman on top of sasieyate, diktaeting tu men in aul tthingz, kaan be stopt, aand it duz not reekwieyer aan eelektaral reejekshan. Wun boolat wil du tha trik vere niesle.
+
Wiman hu tthingk thaat Amairikan men or woosaz hu haavan't tha guts (aur uther aurganz) tu staand agenst the 'inevitabilite' uv Raadikal Feminizam'z verzhan uv "eekwolite" (wiman dominant, men sabserveeyant) need tu reekaalkyoolaet in liet uv Benazeer Bueto's vieyalant detth. Men kaan fiet baak aafter aul.
+
Let's not maek wiman intu inasant "viktimz" uv mail bruetaalite. Tha reeyaalite iz thaat tha graet preeponderans uv merderz in tha werld toodae or kamitad bi aur aat tha beehest uv wiman, sum 42 milyan abaurshanz eech aand evre yeer around tha werld. Maetreeyorke in tha faurm uv hyuej numberz uv singgool-muther faamileez haaz raavajd blaak sasieyate in the Yoonietad Staets, aand praduest maasiv laulasnas bi yung men hu wil not aaksept feemail autthorite but hu tern agenst feemail dominans witth bruetal finaalite. Wood-be siekalojikale kaastraeting blaak wiman hu moutth auf tu tha men thae hook up witth sumtiemz fiend themselvz saveerle beetan, eevan tu detth, hwen the men thae taunt snaap aand pruev thair bieyalojikal dominans.
+
The Yoonietad Staets toodae tue aufan preetendz thaat bieyolaje duzan't maater. Evre nou aand then, houwever, bieyolaje poeks its hed tthru tha fog uv maek-beeleev, aand sez beeyond deenieying: "This for aand no forther."
+
Thair iz sumtiemz a pries tu be paed in trieying tu deeni bieyolaje aand tern tha werld on its hed. Benazeer Bueto paed thaat pries laast muntth. Hilare Klintan mae pae it ene tiem nou. Hwether thaat iz a teribool tthing aur graet tthing deependz apon yaur point uv vyu. Raadikal Feminists wer livid, indignant, aand horified aat the asaasinaeshan/merder/eksakyueshan uv Benazeer Bueto. Men hu se men under ataak evreehwair, houwever, wer deelietad. Wil thae sae so? Probable not.
+
This iz a perfakt egzaampool uv tha limits uv publik-apinyan poeling. Peepool li tu poelsterz. I diskust thaat heer in kanekshan witth tha kontradiktare reezults uv poelz aand the aakchuewal voet heer in Nu Jerze in reegord tu a baalot inishativ tu fund aan agresiv embreeyonik stem-sel reeserch projekt. Tha poelz haad tha propazishan wining bigtiem. The aakchuewal voet sent it kraashing tu Ertth in flaemz. Hwi? Beekauz peepool or loetth tu be seen in a baad liet hwen thae or aaskt kweschanz bi poelsterz, aand faevering stem-sel reeserch wuz perseevd in liberal Nu Jerze aaz the "apruevd" staans, apoezing it the "unjeneras", "baakwerd", "koeld-hortad" staans. But hwen tha voeterz stept beehiend tha kertan uv tha voeting masheen, thae voetad thair oen hort: yu doen't kil baebeez tu chop them up faur ports.
+
In liek faashan, no poel kweschan iz liekle eevan tu be aaskt such aaz, "Wuz kiling Benazeer Bueto tha riet tthing tu du?" aur "Wuz the asaasinaeshan uv Benazeer Bueto a setbaak faur Paakistaane sivilizaeshan aur a nesasere ajustmant tu a kanfyuezd sasieyate goewing maad?" Sertanle no such kweschan about vieyalant reeyaakshan tu Raadikal Feminizam heer wood be aaskt in the Yoonietad Staets. Aand if it wer, yu koodan't trust tha reezults, broekan doun bi tha jender uv reespondants, unles a stortlingle hi — feminists wood sae "apaulingle" hi — persentaj uv men reeplied thaat it wuz indeed tha riet tthing tu du, nesasere tu riet a sasieyate beeying ternd upsied doun.
+
We or aul tue yuest tu taemd "men" in this kuntre, holo, eemaaskyoolaetad shelz. This iz shoen in a videeyo availabool on the Internet thaat iz sapoezd tu be fune. Faur men hu se men endlasle deemeend aand ridikyueld, thair iz aabsaluetle nutthing fune about it. Kamerhsalz aand sitkomz paurtrae men aaz bufuenz, fuelz, aand mauronz. I'v bin saeying this faur yeerz, aand reesantle sau thaat sumwun els haaz taekan up tha chorj. I did not get hiz naem, but I saw a raukas konfrantaeshan beetween sum maan aand a wooman hu didan't wont tu let him speek, on Foks Nuz Chaanal'z O'Riele Faakter a fyu weeks ago. Sins tha maan wuz beeying aaktivle disreespektad bi tha wooman aand O'Rile did not tel her tu shut tha hel up aand let him haav hiz sae beefaur she laambaestad him, I ternd auf in disgust: maur uv tha saem, endlas disreespekt faur men in ouwer toksik meedeeya kulcher.
+
Dekaedz ago I roet tu tha maekerz uv Ornald bred tu kamplaen thaat its kamershalz then runing wer dastruktivle deemeening tu men, espeshale givan thaat maasiv divaurs in this kuntre haaz givan riez tu milyanz uv housqhoeldz in hwich litool boiz haav no mail roel modal tu kounter in reeyaalite tha propagaanda thae se on talavizhan. Tha werld thaat meedeeya preezent shoez thaat litool boiz haav no fyuecher in this kuntre. Tha hoel werld iz beeying ternd oever tu wiman, aand thoez wiman haav litool but kantempt faur men. Self-haetrad, eevan suewisied in boiz, wuz beeying pramoetad bi such kamershalz. Not laung aafter, Ornald diskantinyued thaat lien uv aadvertiezing. Hwether mi leter haad eneetthing tu du witth it, I kaanot noe. But if mi kamplaent, aadad tu utherz', did influewans wun kaurparaeshan tu stop ridikyueling men, thaat iz aul tu tha good, aand shood enkeraj evreewun hu seez such aadvertiesing aaz dastruktiv tu sasieyate aand speshale pernishas in its ifekt on boi childran uv divors, tu speek out tu end it. Not lesan it. End it.
+
Men'z "privilaj" haaz bin pragresivle dastroid aand reeplaest bi feemail privilaj. Hwen Prinstan aand uther Ieve Leeg kolajaz aadmitad wiman, thae didan't dubool tha number uv plaesaz in eech entering klaas. Thae just took awae seets faurmerle availabool tu yung men aand gaev them tu yung wiman. Men laust, pyuer aand simpool. Thaat's not hwut we wer toeld feminizam wuz aul about: "It's not thaat men wil luez out. It's just thaat wiman wil be givan maur opartuenite." Yup: opartueniteez stoelan frum men aand haandad oever tu wiman. Aand a lot uv tha wiman hu took thoez plaesaz awae frum men did it priemerile faur huzband-hunting. Thae didan't yuez tha digreez thae stoel frum men. Thae took jobz oenle aaz laung aaz it took tu fiend a rich huzband, aand then, aafter geting maareed, reetieyerd frum tha werkfaurs. Aul thaat ekspensiv ejookaeshan, stoelan frum men, wuz tthroen awae. Aand tha men hu wood haav taekan thaat ejookaeshan intu tha werkfaurs faur faurte yeerz aand maur didan't get tha buest tu thair kareer thaat aan Ieve Leeg ejookaeshan wood haav givan them. Thae just laust out.
+
In 42 staets, wiman haav bin graantad tha riet, tthru "Saef Haevan" lauz, tu abaandan thair childran witthout penalte. Men hu abaandan thair childran or kauld "dedbeet daadz" aand not just vilified but houndad aand eevan imprizand. Thair waejaz or gornisht, thair properte seezd aand soeld tu pae chieyald sapaurt faur childran thae haad no intenshan uv praduesing. Wiman hu toeld men thae wer on tha pil aur steril or reeleevd uv reesponsibilite faur fraud; aand in sum kaesaz, men hu haav bin trikt intu tthingking a chieyald not thairz iz thair reesponsibilite haav eeven bin found lieyabool bi kaurts faur kantinyuewing chieyald sapaurt tu anuther maan'z chieyald! (Meer ouwerz aafter I uploedad this blog entre, ABK Werld Nuez did a staure about this vere injustis, hwich 17 staets haav lejislaetad tu fiks, but haav reefyuezed tu simple outlau, aand tha reefaurms aakchuewale preezerv the baesik injustis in mene kaesaz, faur instans, the 'fother' duzan't diskuver tha deesepshan until tha chieyald iz 4 yeerz oeld. Tha Soopreem Kaurt's maaksim, "Justis deelaed iz justis deenied" haaz nou apaarantle bin traansfaurmd tu "Justis deelaed is injustis faurever." 'Childran'z aadvakats' (wiman'z grueps), tha reepaurt sez, tthingk such viktimizaeshan uv men iz just fien, beekauz it iz in "tha best interest uv the chieyald". So just ene persan kaan be reekwieyerd tu sapaurt a bieyalojikal straenjer, beekauz thaat chieyald needz sapaurt? Let us, then, raandamle salekt straenjerz tu pae chieyald sapaurt faur kidz not thair oen. Shuerle it wood be in "tha best interest uv the chieyald" tu haav sumwun, eneewun, sapaurt them, riet? I haav aan eevan beter iedeeya: Let's send chieyald-sapaurt bilz tu thoez chieyald aadvakase grueps' egzekyootivz aand memberz. Maebe if thae or eech indivijoowale reekwieyerd tu pae $638 a muntth faur 14 yeerz, faur a straenjer, thae wil waek up tu the injustis. Thae shoodan't kamplaen. It's in "tha best interest uv tha chieyald"! Faur hwutever reezan, this staure, hwich kaem taurd the end uv the haaf-ouwer eevning nuez sho, iz not on thaat proegraam'z websiet. Iz thaat meer deelay, aand tha staure wil be aadad bi toomoro? Aur haaz it bin sooprest?)
+
Tha "faamile" kaurts uv the Yoonietad Staets or intensle, neerle vieyalantle aanteemail, aand a lorj prapaurshan uv tha jujaz uv such kaurts or wiman hu haav aabsaluetly no simpatthe faur men, ever.
+
Eevan tha sapoezd man, "Dr. Fil", huez audeeyans iz preeponderantle feemail, iz so freekwantle hostool tu men thaat yu haav tu wunder if he haaz bin fizikale aur oenle siekalojikale kaastraetad. Uv kaurs, he miet just be a lieyer, teling wiman hwut thae wont tu heer in aurder tu keep hiz audeeyans aand the aadvertiezerz thaat audeeyans apeelz tu. Aat end, hiz moetivz doen't maater. Hiz retarik aand aanteemail bieyas, houwever, du maater. In koutouwing tu Raadikal Feminizam aand feeding hiz feemail audeeyans tha klaaptraap thae wont tu heer, Dr. Fil iz "in on it", this endlas kaampaen tu deemeen, reedues, eevan ultimatle dastroi men. Aand he duz so in tha giez uv "helper".
+
The Oksijan! kaebool chaanal haaz a sho kauld Snaapt in hwich wiman hu kil men or 'studeed' — thaat iz, justified, eevan glaurified in thair merderz uv men. Frum tha faemas/infamas TV mueve Tha Berning Bed, in hwich a wooman iz treetad aaz a heero (never, uv kaurs, "heroewin", beekauz tha saem peepool hu sagjest men or so aufool wont wiman tu be kauld bi maaskyoolin termz) merderz her huzband, tu the akwital uv Laraena Bobit, on tha groundz uv temparere insaanite thaat kauzd her tu haav aan "eereezistibool impuls" tu myuetilaet her huzband in a fashan thaat kood eezile haav praduest hiz detth, tha vieyalant bieyas uv this sasieyate agenst men iz atroeshas aand unfargivabool. Men hu kil wiman or monsterz; wiman hu kil men or heeroez.

Aafter tha trieyal, Laraena wuz treetad aaz a feminist "heero", tho she atemptad tu keep a lo proefieyal aand reezuemd tha yues uv her maedan naem, Gaalo. In Deesember 1997, Laraena maed nuez hwen she wuz chorjd witth asault faur punching her muther, Elveeya Gaalo, aaz she wotcht telavizhan. She wuz eevenchuewale found gilte uv asaulting her muther.

Hwen she ataakt a maan, she wuz a heero, aand haandad aan akwital. Hwen she ataakt a wooman, she wuz kanviktad.
+
Tha vishas aanteemail verdikts aand aanteemail lauz (e.g., divaurs aand chieyald kustade lauz) we sufer aker eevan hwen tha bulk uv lejislaeterz aand jujaz or, unbileevable, men! Aur or thae so siekalojikale kaastraetad thaat thae no laungger kwolifi aaz men?
+
Fieting brest kaanser iz endlasle poosht aaz a kauz evreewun shood sapaurt, but men'z kaanserz get aabsaluetle no atenshan.
+
Raadikal Feminizam haaz not smuethd reelaeshanz beetween tha seksaz. Kwiet tha kontrere. Thair iz good reezan tu tthingk thaat wiman or maur aufan tha viktim uv vieyalans in the Yoonietad Staets thaan in tradishanal, mail-dominaetad sasieyateez. Raadikal Feminists insist on repreezenting wiman in tradishanal sasieyateez aaz sufering frum "institueshanaliezd vieyalans" agenst thair "iedentite", "dignite", aand eevan "soel". But I saspekt thae or not, in moest such sasieyateez, tha viktimz uv tha hi levalz uv raep, spousal abyues, aand merder thae sufer in the Yoonietad Staets. Tha waur beetween tha seksaz haaz a kaazhuewalte raet, in the Y.S. aloen, in tha hundradz uv thouzandz, aand milyanz uv inasant biestaanderz (abortad infants) li ded on tha siedlienz.
+
So Benazeer Bueto iz ded. Wil eneewun in this kuntre se thaat hwut kaan haapan in Paakistaan kaan haapan heer? Uv kaurs not. We or tu beeleev thaat hwut kaan haapan in Aafrika (sapoezd maasiv "AIDS") kaan haapan heer, but hwut haapanz in Paakistaan kood never haapan heer. Tha revers iz maur liekle tru. Tha reeyaalite iz thaat thair iz no such tthing aaz a maasiv AIDS epidemik in Aafrika; thaat iz aul fraud. But vieyalant mail reejekshan uv a werld ternd upsied doun tu poot wiman on top aand men on tha botam kaan indeed haapan heer. Aand no Raadikal Feminist wood-be Prezidant shood feel saef, eevan witth bodeegordz. Indira Gonde'z bodeegordz kild her.
+
(Tha kerant Y.S. militere detth toel in Eerok, akaurding tu tha websiet "Eerok Koewalishan Kaazhuewalteez", iz 3,922 — faur Izreeyal.)
+
Hillary Clinton's Actual Biography; Defending Against Radical Feminist Takeover.

In the New Hampshire debate, Mrs. Clinton dared to say, in a fit of pique, "I'm not just running on a promise of change, I'm running on 35 years of change." Oh? Her official biography on the White House website says no such thing. She has no government service at all, no elected nor appointed office, until she became a carpetbagger Senator in New York, a state with which she had no prior contacts of consequence. She has served one term and one year in the Senate. That is the full extent of her government service. As First Lady during the Clinton years, she made a few goodwill trips. Big deal. She was a lawyer and worked in some pleasant little causes, such as the Children's Defense Fund. None of her work for those causes effected any kind of political change. In the one thing she was asked to do in regard to change in a significant public area, universal healthcare, she put forward a proposal that was so fiercely attacked that she retreated from it instantly and didn't even try to defend it, much less enact it. So when Hillary Clinton says that she has been creating change for 35 years, she is, in short, a massive, brazen liar.
+
Mrs. Clinton is not entitled to claim credit for Bill Clinton's experience, unless she is regarded as part of the same legal person with her husband, in which case she is not eligible to run for President, because that person has already been President for two full terms. Why is Hillary Clinton eligible to run for President if the real President if she is elected will be not Hillary but Bill?
+
Hillary has claimed, in effect, that she was sort of "co-President" for Bill's two terms. Wouldn't that mean that Bill would be "co-President' with Hillary if she is elected? He is not ENTITLED to be co-President because he is not constitutionally permitted to be President. The Clintons are plainly trying to sidestep the Constitution's ban on anyone serving more than two terms as President by putting the White House in the wife's name. But if the real owner of the house is the husband, we have an obligation to see past the charade to the reality: the Clintons are trying to make an end run around the 22nd Amendment.
+
Mrs. Clinton thus needs to reconsider her claim to have been "co-President" with her husband during his two terms in office. But her opponents should take that claim very seriously, and sue in Federal court to have her barred from the race for the White House on the ground that this is a very thinly veiled attempt to put Bill Clinton into the Presidency for a third (and fourth?) term.
+
As for Hillary's thin victory — 3 percentage points — in New Hampshire, which media made into an enormous triumph, that entire 3-point advantage was due to women voting for a woman only because she is a woman. If women misuse the vote that way, men are perfectly capable of taking the vote away from women. Feminists will laff at such a suggestion, but the vote was a gift from men. Women didn't earn it. It was given to them. What was given can be taken away.
+
The pretense that history moves in only one direction, toward ever wider enfranchisement, is illogical. History moves in all sorts of directions. In the world at large, Communism made the claim to be "The Wave of the Future", and aggressive Communist wars and repressions around the world killed 110 milyan peepool to create that future, achieving full or partial takeover of nearly one-fourth of the planet's area and population. A form of political Communism maintains control over one-fifth of this planet's population, supported by huge trade deficits from the U.S. and Europe, and there are stil Communist guerrilla wars in Latin America and parts of Asia, but no one any longer fears a worldwide Communist takeover.
+
When things go too far in one direction, a correction, in the opposite direction, often results. As a society, we are rethinking divorce on demand; we have resisted abortion on demand and the legalization of drugs. The Federal Government has undone state attempts to legalize "medical" marijuana, and a national identity card, so long resisted as an incursion on basic rights, is about to be enacted in the form of a Federally mandated 'secure' state driver's license. In this "land of the free", citizens are searched when they try to enter a government building or airplane. And people accept ever greater restrictions on their civil liberties in the name ov "security" in tha "War on Terror". The FCC is moving to allow fewer and fewer megacorporations to buy up more and more radio and TV stations, reducing viewer choice and narrowing the range of opinions we will hear. The future is looking to be not freer than the past, but less free. So in at least some ways, history is going the opposite of what we once expected.
+
Any act of any legislature can be reversed. Any provision of the Constitution can be amended away. And women do not fite for their rights. They whine for their 'rights'. At end, men don't have to heed such whining. Benazir Bhutto discovered that men are not helpless against female power grabs, and all women, all over the world, must remember that assassination, the triumph of the fiercely anti-feminist Taliban in the years following the withdrawal of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, and other "setbacks" to Radical Feminism. Men are not helpless to defend themselves from female takeover, and violent revolt is the ultimate defense against Radical Feminism.
+
Radical Feminists, who want to reverse biology and thousands of years of civilization to put women on top of society, dictating to men in all things, can be stopped, and it does not require an electoral rejection. One bullet will do the trick very nicely.
+
Women who think that American men are wusses who haven't the guts (or other organs) to stand against the 'inevitability' of Radical Feminism's version of "equality" (women dominant, men subservient) need to recalculate in lite of Benazir Bhutto's violent death. Men can fite back after all.
+
Let's not make women into innocent "victims" of male brutality. The reality is that the great preponderance of murders in the world today are committed by or at the behest of women, some 42 million abortions each and every year around the world. Matriarchy in the form of huge numbers of single-mother families has ravaged black society in the United States, and produced massive lawlessness by young men who will not accept female authority but who turn against female dominance with brutal finality. Would-be psychologically castrating black women who mouth off to the men they hook up with sometimes find themselves severely beaten, even to death, when the men they taunt snap and prove their biological dominance.
+
The United States today too often pretends that biology doesn't matter. Every now and then, however, biology pokes its head thru the fog of make-believe, and says beyond denying: "This far and no farther."
+
There is sometimes a price to be paid in trying to deny biology and turn the world on its head. Benazir Bhutto paid that price last month. Hillary Clinton may pay it any time now. Whether that is a terrible thing or great thing depends upon your point of view. Radical Feminists were livid, indignant, and horrified at the assassination/murder/execution of Benazir Bhutto. Men who see men under attack everywhere, however, were delited. Will they say so? Probably not.
+
This is a perfect example of the limits of public-opinion polling. People lie to pollsters. I discussed that here in connection with the contradictory results of polls and the actual vote here in New Jersey in regard to a ballot initiative to fund an aggressive embryonic stem-cell research project. The polls had the proposition winning bigtime. The actual vote sent it crashing to Earth in flames. Why? Because people are loath to be seen in a bad lite when they are asked questions by pollsters, and favoring stem-cell research was perceived in liberal New Jersey as the "approved" stance, opposing it the "ungenerous", "backward", "cold-hearted" stance. But when the voters stepped behind the curtain of the voting machine, they voted their own heart: you don't kill babies to chop them up for parts.
+
In like fashion, no poll question is likely even to be asked such as, "Was killing Benazir Bhutto the right thing to do?" or "Was the assassination of Benazir Bhutto a setback for Pakistani civilization or a necessary adjustment to a confused society going mad?" Certainly no such question about violent reaction to Radical Feminism here would be asked in the United States. And if it were, you couldn't trust the results, broken down by the gender of respondents, unless a startlingly high — feminists would say "appallingly" high — percentage of men replied that it was indeed the right thing to do, necessary to right a society being turned upside down.
+
We are all too used to tamed "men" in this country, hollow, emasculated shells. This is shown in a video available on the Internet that is supposed to be funny. For men who see men endlessly demeaned and ridiculed, there is absolutely nothing funny about it. Commercials and sitcoms portray men as buffoons, fools, and morons. I've been saying this for years, and recently saw that someone else has taken up the charge. I did not get his name, but I saw a raucous confrontation between some man and a woman who didn't want to let him speak, on Fox News Channel's O'Reilly Factor a few weeks ago. Since the man was being actively disrespected by the woman and O'Reilly did not tell her to shut the hell up and let him have his say before she lambasted him, I turned off in disgust: more of the same, endless disrespect for men in our toxic media culture.
+
Decades ago I wrote to the makers of Arnold bread to complain that its commercials then running were destructively demeaning to men, especially given that massive divorce in this country has given rise to millions of households in which little boys have no male role model to counter in reality the propaganda they see on television. The world that media present shows that little boys have no future in this country. The whole world is being turned over to women, and those women have little but contempt for men. Self-hatred, even suicide in boys, was being promoted by such commercials. Not long after, Arnold discontinued that line of advertising. Whether my letter had anything to do with it, I cannot know. But if my complaint, added to others', did influence one corporation to stop ridiculing men, that is all to the good, and should encourage everyone who sees such advertising as destructive to society and specially pernicious in its effect on boy children of divorce, to speak out to end it. Not lessen it. End it.
+
Men's "privilege" has been progressively destroyed and replaced by female privilege. When Princeton and other Ivy League colleges admitted women, they didn't double the number of places in each entering class. They just took away seats formerly available to young men and gave them to young women. Men lost, pure and simple. That's not what we were told feminism was all about: "It's not that men will lose out. It's just that women will be given more opportunity." Yup: opportunities stolen from men and handed over to women. And a lot of the women who took those places away from men did it primarily for husband-hunting. They didn't use the degrees they stole from men. They took jobs only as long as it took to find a rich husband, and then, after getting married, retired from the workforce. All that expensive education, stolen from men, was thrown away. And the men who would have taken that education into the workforce for forty years and more didn't get the boost to their career that an Ivy League education would have given them. They just lost out.
+
In 42 states, women have been granted the right, thru "Safe Haven" laws, to abandon their children without penalty. Men who abandon their children are called "deadbeat dads" and not just vilified but hounded and even imprisoned. Their wages are garnished, their property seized and sold to pay child support for children they had no intention of producing. Women who told men they were on the pill or sterile are relieved of responsibility for fraud; and in some cases, men who have been tricked into thinking a child not theirs is their responsibility have even been found liable by courts for continuing child support to another man's child! (Mere hours after I uploaded this blog entry, ABC World News did a story about this very injustice, which 17 states have legislated to fix, but have refused to simply outlaw, and the reforms actually preserve the basic injustice in many cases, for instance, the 'father' doesn't discover the deception until the child is 4 years old. The Supreme Court's maxim, "Justice delayed is justice denied" has now apparently been transformed to "Justice delayed is injustice forever." 'Children's advocates' (women's groups), the report says, think such victimization of men is just fine, because it is in "the best interest of the child". So just any person can be required to support a biological stranger, because that child needs support? Let us, then, randomly select strangers to pay child support for kids not their own. Surely it would be in "the best interest of the child" to have someone, anyone, support them, right? I have an even better idea: Let's send child-support bills to those child-advocacy groups' executives and members. Maybe if they are each individually required to pay $638 a month for 14 years, for a stranger, they will wake up to the injustice. They shouldn't complain. It's in "the best interest of the child"! For whatever reason, this story, which came toward the end of the half-hour evening news show, is not on that program's website. Is that mere delay, and the story will be added by tomorrow? Or has it been suppressed?)
+
The "family" courts of the United States are intensely, nearly violently antimale, and a large proportion of the judges of such courts are women who have absolutely no sympathy for men, ever.
+
Even the supposed man, "Dr. Phil", whose audience is preponderantly female, is so frequently hostile to men that you have to wonder if he has been physically or only psychologically castrated. Of course, he might just be a liar, telling women what they want to hear in order to keep his audience and the advertisers that audience appeals to. At end, his motives don't matter. His rhetoric and antimale bias, however, do matter. In kowtowing to Radical Feminism and feeding his female audience the claptrap they want to hear, Dr. Phil is "in on it", this endless campaign to demean, reduce, even ultimately destroy men. And he does so in the guise of "helper".
+
The Oxygen! cable channel has a show called Snapped in which women who kill men are 'studied' — that is, justified, even glorified in their murders of men. From the famous/infamous TV movie The Burning Bed, in which a woman is treated as a hero (never, of course, "heroine", because the same people who suggest men are so awful want women to be called by masculine terms) murders her husband, to the acquittal of Lorena Bobbitt, on the grounds of temporary insanity that caused her to have an "irresistible impulse" to mutilate her husband in a fashion that could easily have produced his death, the violent bias of this society against men is atrocious and unforgiveable. Men who kill women are monsters; women who kill men are heroes.

After the trial, Lorena was treated as a feminist "hero", though she attempted to keep a low profile and resumed the use of her maiden name, Gallo. In December 1997, Lorena made news when she was charged with assault for punching her mother, Elvia Gallo, as she watched television. She was eventually found guilty of assaulting her mother.

When she attacked a man, she was a hero, and handed an acquittal. When she attacked a woman, she was convicted.
+
The vicious antimale verdicts and antimale laws (e.g., divorce and child custody laws) we suffer occur even when the bulk of legislators and judges are, unbelievably, men! Or are they so psychologically castrated that they no longer qualify as men?
+
Fiting breast cancer is endlessly pushed as a cause everyone should support, but men's cancers get absolutely no attention.
+
Radical Feminism has not smoothed relations between the sexes. Quite the contrary. There is good reason to think that women are more often the victim of violence in the United States than in traditional, male-dominated societies. Radical Feminists insist on representing women in traditional societies as suffering from "institutionalized violence" against their "identity", "dignity", even "soul". But I suspect they are not, in most such societies, the victims of the high levels of rape, spousal abuse, and murder they suffer in the United States. The war between the sexes has a casualty rate, in the U.S. alone, in the hundreds of thousands, and millions of innocent bystanders (aborted infants) lie dead on the sidelines.
+
So Benazir Bhutto is dead. Will anyone in this country see that what can happen in Pakistan can happen here? Of course not. We are to believe that what can happen in Africa (supposed massive "AIDS") can happen here, but what happens in Pakistan could never happen here. The reverse is more likely true. The reality is that there is no such thing as a massive AIDS epidemic in Africa; that is all fraud. But violent male rejection of a world turned upside down to put women on top and men on the bottom can indeed happen here. And no Radical Feminist would-be President should feel safe, even with bodyguards. Indira Gandhi's bodyguards killed her.
+
(The current U.S. military death toll in Iraq, according to the website "Iraq Coalition Casualties", is 3,922 — for Israel.)

- posted by L. Craig Schoonmaker @ 2:34 PM