Anatomy of an Ass-Hole

We formed ourselves into tight groups…the idea was the shark come to the nearest man, that man he starts poundin' and hollerin' and sometimes that shark he go away... but sometimes he wouldn't go away. Sometimes that shark looks right at ya. Right into your eyes. And the thing about a shark is he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, he doesn't even seem to be livin'... 'til he bites ya, and those black eyes roll over white and then... ah then you hear that terrible high-pitched screamin'. The ocean turns red, and despite all your poundin' and your hollerin' those sharks come in and... they rip you to pieces.

from Jaws (1975)

A real sweetheart

3/29/2006

Taking a break from the political, I saw in the Daily News yesterday and again today in the New York Post (“The paper of record”) there was a story about pitching ace Randy Johnson (Pictured above). The New York Yankees last year acquired the lefty fire-baller from the Arizona Diamondbacks and are due to pay him 16 million dollars for his roughly 33 starts this year. For those of you keeping score, that is $484,848 per appearance.

Evidently 16 years ago the 42 year old pitcher fathered a child with a soon to be ex-girlfriend, Roberta Roszell. He only saw the baby once, right after her birth and did not pay any kind of child support until 1998. That is when Roszell petitioned the now multi-millionaire star athlete for money.

After Johnson demanded a paternity test, which was taken and conclusively proved that his cock was the source of the kid’s DNA, he haggled with the single mom over amounts of money to be provided. Finally to get something...anything...from this mega rich bastion of society, she agreed to his terms. Johnson would painfully fork over roughly $5,700 a month until Heather Renee Roszell, his biological daughter, turned 18 years old.

The only reason why this information is coming to light now is because Johnson, through his battery of Lawyers, is now suing the mother of his child for about $100,000 of the money he paid to her over the years. He is claiming, through his twelve attorneys he keeps on retainer, that Roszell misused the funds, did not need the money, etc. Included in the $100,000 figure, Johnson and his legal staff of over 600 clerks, paralegals, court runners, data entry specialists and proofreaders, is about $26,000 in back interest that he feels he is entitled to.

What a man!!!

In the past, the deserted love-child, 16 year old Heather Renee, tried to have a relationship with Johnson by regularly writing him heartfelt letters. Her estranged father’s responses to these cries for acknowledgment were less than intimate. Her quote:

I would get cards back from him with just his signature – “Randy.” I never got more of a response, so it got to the point where I didn’t want to deal with not getting a response. I don’t have a relationship with him.

THIS IS YOUR DAUGHTER FOR CHRIST’S SAKE!!!

Being the stand-up guy that he is, Johnson had his agent, Alan Nero, speak for him. When Nero was asked about the father/daughter estrangement, he responded:

Randy tried his best to have a relationship with her and her daughter, and it just didn’t work out. It just wasn’t meant to be.

Was it meant to be when he was sucking and fucking on the couch?

Now, I believe this situation speaks for itself. Simply put, I think the girls are telling the truth and Johnson is pathetically attempting to spin the situation or, worse, flat out lying. He is the bad guy here...case closed. But for all you contrarians, devil’s advocates and deadbeat dads out there who read this article and said, “right on Randy,” I will admit that the only information I have comes from the above mentioned periodicals so there could be more to the story. There might be many omitted facts and information that is pertinent for a final analysis but not sexy or sensational enough to make the front page. It wouldn’t be the first time these rags spiced up a story to get my two-bits.

For example, the mother/daughter duo could really be a pair of grifters trying to milk their cash cow for all he is worth. Roberta might not be the put upon women modestly raising a daughter as she is depicted in The News. Heather might not be the well adjusted teenager that appears in the New York Post who was deprived of a “normal” childhood due to her absentee father. In other words, let’s just say EVERYTHING the randy Randy Johnson had to say in his professionally prepared legal Affidavits are all true. So what? We are talking about $100,000 over an eight year period.

This ass-hole wipes his ass with that kind of money.

Now I am not advocating the extortion of someone just because they have money. And everyone is innocent until they are proven guilty. But I am praying that one day...maybe not today or tomorrow but someday...the spoiled, pampered rich bitches of our society, whose wealth, earned or otherwise, have led to a lifestyle of such ludicrous irresponsibility, look at themselves in the mirror and start behaving like men.

Am I being too harsh? I don't think so because what really got my goat was this interesting tid-bit from the article:

Johnson, known for intimidating opposing hitters with his icy stare and 100-mph fastball, became a born-again Christian in 1992 after the death of his father.

Oh really?

Does that mean I can assume that right before this prick gave the OK to his team of shysters to file this obviously spiteful and punitive lawsuit, he knelt in pray and asked himself “What would Jesus Do?”

And Jesus responded "Sue the Bitch"?

Enough already with these total hypocrites! People who feel that they have had an epiphany which gives them carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want. People who view the universe as one big private club and they have been given the secret handshake.

People who claim to have "accepted Jesus into their hearts" and then act in such a polar opposite manner:

People who speak of morality and then shun their responsibility for their numerous fornications.

People who arrogantly and selfishly believe that Jesus had anything to do with their scoring a touchdown, hitting a homerun or slamdunking a basketball.

People who thank Jesus for their Academy Award right after performing a lavish three minute song that glorifies the "Pimp Life."

People who sing of Jesus as they crawl in the cesspool of dirty money an unadulterated greed.

People who praise the Lord and then personally sign over 100 Orders of Execution.

People who speak of freedom and peace while they colonize and wage war on their fellow human beings.

GOD DAMN IT!!!
I promised myself I wouldn't get political.
Larry

Messing with the Man

3/22/06

Here is an exercise that can put a little perspective on things.

The next time you get one of these Snapper-Head telemarketers on the horn, politely answer his "How are you" type scripted questions and let him go through his spiel. It doesn't matter what this captain of industry is hawking just let him talk. When he finally gets to his moment of truth ("Can I put you down for that sir?") say either a terse "no" or do not say anything at all. The clown's next response will most likely be another scripted "Refusal Response." Since you only said no without any particular reason he might be flummoxed, but let him talk some more.

Now here comes The Sting!!!

After he is done with his ludicrous reply (Actually probably a very reasoned, rationale answer but, in reality, on par with a Dali/Bunuel absurdist scene when you take into account the circumstances, i.e. total stranger asking you for money just before you are about to sit down and eat in your own home.) one thing, and one thing only, is extremely crucial:

***DO NOT SAY A WORD***

The joker on the other end of the phone will be completely flustered. For the rest of the call DO NOT ANSWER anything he asks accept for "Are you still there?" type inquiries which you respond chipperly yes or any derivitive of. He is trained to "Let the customer hang up first" so unless you hang up he should not.

Marvel at the length of time that is spent in "awkward silences."

Laugh out loud at the comical things this guy says...over and over again...when he haplessly recites answers although he has no idea what he is responding to.

Become incensed when he starts putting words in your mouth in a straw grasping exercise in an attempt to "close the deal."

And then weep uncontrollably when you think about the current President of the United States.

You get what you pay for.
Larry

My Name Is Dubya...Bill For Short

You just cost me six thousand dollars. Six thousand dollars. And one Cadillac. That's right. What are you going to do about it? I said what are you going to do about it, asshole?

You fucking shit. Where did you learn your trade you stupid fucking cunt? You idiot. Whoever told you you could work with men?

I'm going to have your job, shit head. I'm going downtown and talk to Mitch and Murrray, and I'm going to Lemkin. I don't care whose nephew you are, who you know, whose dick you're sucking on. You're going out, I swear to you, you're going...

Anyone in this office lives on their wits...What you're hired for is to help us--does that seem clear to you? To help us. Not to fuck us up...to help men who are going out there to try to earn a living you fairy. You company man.

You want to learn the first rule you'd know if you ever spent a day in your life. You never open your mouth till you know what the shot is.

You fucking child.

David Mamet
from Glengarry Glen Ross

3/7/06

There is more trouble in paradise.

Evidently people are upset at the latest revelation about the Bush Administration and their handling of Hurricaine Katrina. A tape has appeared that shows Bush being warned of the upcoming disaster prior to the Hurricaine and then afterwards saying in an interview that nobody knew nuthin.

Here is an excerpt from one (justifiably) angry e-mail I received:

Now let's see if they show Bush lying over and over again on TV looking into the cameras and saying "NO ONE ANTICIPATED"...........like they did with Clinton saying he didn't have relations with that woman.................Now THIS was a lie that affected Americans directly and may have caused deaths.

I wouldn’t characterize Slick Willie's "lie" as bad, really. It was more embarrassing than anything. I mean, after all, what did you want the guy to say?

"Yeah, that fat chick made my cock so hard I wanted to explode!!!"

On national television? With his wife and kid watching? Is that what the people who champion "Family Values," whatever the hell that means, wanted him do? Can you imagine teenage Chelsea watching "TV" with her friends and she sees her father telling the world about his infidelities? I think that would be unduly harmful mean and cruel to an "innocent" girl who did absolutely nothing wrong to anybody. And of course when these same people who wanted Bill to humiliate his family hear about the plethora of reports about the Bush Girls underage drinking and partying, they damn the press and become completely outraged about "respecting privacy" and "personal matters."

Well what do you expect from self-righteous, mean and cruel people?

And yet, this transgression, lying about knob polishing, was all that was needed for the power mad, self loathing hypocrites of the Republican Party to try to run a duly and truly elected President out of office.

If you ask me, the two main lessons of the whole ridiculous Clinton Impeachment were:

1) The impeachment proceedings is undeniable proof that the leaders of the Republican Party, and I would argue the majority of the party, could not care less about the fundamental principles of our Representative Democracy and will do anything...ANYTHING...to secure their own power and profit, regardless if their actions help or hurt the population at large. And this doesn't just go towards trying to keep elected offices etc. I'm talking about common sense stuff like Gun Control, Education, Environment, Tobacco, Energy, Pornography and Healthcare. Their positions on ANY issue are directly related to who is lining their pockets at the time. And that position will change, do a complete 180, if the name of their "donor" changes. Further proof of this is this truly unholy alliance, which started with Reagan but has come to full fruition with the current Administration, between the Neo-Con/Libertarian/Laissez-Faire Capitalists, people who, by definition, have no objective morality besides the jangling of coins, and the Evangelical/Born Again/Sexually Repressed groups who are people, by definition, whose Raison d'être is so anti-human and impractical they have to continuously force other people to live as they do because if they truly examined their own hypo-critical righteousness they would uncontrollably weep about their own inner hollowness and fraud. The fact that the first group panders to the second group, which is so diametrically opposed in basic philosophy, makes me believe they would do whatever they had to do to keep their Gold, no matter how many times they say buzzwords like Patriotism, Freedom and Democracy to us rubes.

2) Out of all the "investigating" that went on during the Clinton Administration, that thinking, sane people are pretty much all in agreement in the opinion that it bordered on a witch hunt, that was the best they could get him on!!! In my opinion, that fact elevated his Presidency in the view of history. I remember watching Clinton's speech at the 2000 Democratic Convention, that was the one where right before he spoke the TV showed his ridiculous two minute Elvis-Like walk to the podium, and I watched it expecting...hoping...that he was just going to say something like, "You tried to get me out but I’m STILL HERE MOTHER-FUCKER!!! SO FUCK YOU...AND YOU...AND YOU...AND YOU..." etc. But the truly shameful part, and WE ALL bare this guilt/shame is that he was actually impeached for it! The fact that working men and women rallied behind that movement again shows that although these guys (Republican Leadership) have no moral center and could not care less if you...YES YOU...lived or died, they sure as hell can sell.

With all that being said, what I am about to say is going to blow your minds.

I think what Clinton did during that infamous press conference was more egregious than what the President did in his softball Katrina photo op. And in this case, I am not really convinced that Bush lied.

WHAAAAAAAAAAT???

That's right.

In his statement, Clinton actually lied about what he did with his penis and deliberately tried to deceive the American Public. Bush, on the other hand, is just one stupid fuck. Even if I personally understand, and agree with, the motives of Slick Willie’s gambit, as a rule, deception is always worse than plain ignorance. Like George Carlin once said right after the 1996 election:

Bob Dole stands up there, pounding his fist, saying, I’m a truthful, hard working decent farmer from Kansas," and no one buys it. Clinton gets up there and says, "I’m a lying sack of shit" and people say, "At least he’s honest."

And I do not use the term ignorant lightly when I describe the over-indulged hoople-head that is in the Whitehouse. I believe he was at a meeting where the possibilities of unspeakable horror were spelled out in painfully meticulous detail and I believe Bush wasn’t paying any kind of attention even if he appeared to be listening and maybe asked a question or two. He probably still didn’t expect the New Orleans levees to break even after this "briefing" and, of course in that dullard’s fantasy world, since he didn’t, he assumed nobody did.

That is the definition of the word "ignorant."

I know the recent "bombshell" is that they have recorded tape of some briefing where the President and his drinking buddies are told that there is danger in New Orleans, people are going to die, etc. Then later, after the Hurricaine actually hit and New Orleans was in danger, and people were dying, etc., Bush says on the television that nobody expected the Levees to break. Several venues reported this outrageous Stalinesque moment awhile ago, most notably John Stewart of The Daily Show. True, I don’t remember the Liberal Media, and their real agenda to tear down Bush, picking up on it in back then but, oh well, better late than never I guess.

THAT GOD DAMN LIBERAL MEDIA WHEN ARE THEY GOING TO LEAVE THAT MAN ALONE!!!

(I personally posted about this incident in September of 2005 Tucker the Fucker)

I am reminded of the time when I took a political history class in my junior year in college. The subject of Hitler was being discussed. After the teacher finished his lecture about the various actions of Nazi Germany between 1933 and 1945, he asked if there were any "Questions, comments, criticisms." A very "clever" student raised his hand. This is what followed.

CLEVER STUDENT

Isn’t it true that most of the Nazi Hierarchy were also gay?


Professor

That settles it...
They were bad people.

I am happy that this latest outrage is making people mad but I have to go now...

There's a danming op-ed piece in the Times that I have to read.

Larry

Thought Provoking?

3/1/2006


A friend of mine forwarded me this article this morning under the subject heading “Thought Provoking.” Read it and tell me what you think...

Why the Left doesn't blame Muslims for Muslim violence
Feb 28, 2006
by Dennis Prager

There's a certain consistent pattern regarding the worldwide Left's assessment of culpability for Muslim terror. It is the fault of the murdered.

The most recent example is the blaming of Denmark, or at least the Danish newspaper, for publishing cartoons of Muhammad. From Kofi Annan to The New York Times -- and the other American newspapers that declared respect for religious symbols a new journalistic virtue -- liberal and leftist opinion always condemns violent Muslim demonstrations, but always with a "but." The "but" is that in the final analysis, it was the Danish and other European papers' faults for insulting the Muslim prophet.
This is only the latest example of finding the victims of Islamic violence responsible for that violence.

For a decade or more, it has been a given on the Left that Israel is to blame for terror committed against Israelis by Palestinian Muslims (Palestinian Christians don't engage in suicide terror). What else are the Palestinians supposed to do? If they had Apache helicopters, the argument goes, they would use them. But they don't, so they use the poor man's nuclear weapon -- suicide terror.

The same argument is given to explain 9-11. Three thousand innocent Americans were incinerated by Islamic terrorists because America has been meddling in the Middle East so long. This was bound to happen. And, anyway, don't we support Israel?

And when Muslim terrorists blew up Madrid trains, killing 191 people and injuring 1,500 others, the Left in Spain and elsewhere blamed Spanish foreign policy. After all, the Spanish government had sent troops into Iraq.

When largely Muslim rioters burned and looted for a month in France, who was blamed? France, of course -- France doesn't know how to assimilate immigrants, and, as the BBC reported on Nov. 5, 2005, "[Interior Minister Nicolas] Sarkozy's much-quoted description of urban vandals as 'rabble' a few days before the riots began is said by many to have already created tension." Calling rabble "rabble" causes them to act like to rabble.
If you wish to test the thesis that the Left blames those blown up for being blown up by Muslim terrorists, have your son or daughter at college ask some liberal arts professors who is to blame for 9-11 or Muslim suicide bombers in Israel, etc.

In fact, one way to describe the moral divide between conservatives and liberals is whom they blame for acts of evil committed against innocent people, especially when committed by non-whites and non-Westerners. Conservatives blame the perpetrators, and liberals blame either the victims' group or the circumstances.

We Americans are used to this. For decades, liberals have blamed violent crime in America on racism and poverty, i.e., on American society far more than on the murderers, rapists, arsonists and muggers themselves. Conservatives blame the criminals.
During the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles, black mobs murdered innocent Korean shopkeepers and burned sections of the city. The liberal response in America was virtually universal: We must understand the anger of these people at American racism. The daily special section on the riots in the major local newspaper, the Los Angeles Times, was titled, "Understanding the Rage."

Though Thomas Friedman, the New York Times foreign affairs correspondent, has been among the few prominent liberals to support the Iraq War, he regularly blames Islamic terror on unemployment in the Arab world.

Since examples of liberals refusing to blame criminals and terrorists for their behavior are legion, let's try to figure out why this moral inversion is so common.
Here are three hypotheses:

One is that liberals tend to blame outside forces for evil. This emanates from the secular humanistic view of people as basically good -- and therefore human evil must come not from the bad choices and bad values of the evildoer, but from the unfortunate socioeconomic and other circumstances of the person's life.

The second explanation is that as you go further left on the political spectrum, it becomes increasingly difficult to blame the "weak" for any atrocities they commit. The Left does not divide the world between good and evil nearly as much as it does between rich and poor, and between strong and weak. Israel is stronger and richer, so Palestinian terror is excused. White America is stronger and richer than black America, so black violence is excused. The West is stronger and richer than the Muslim world, so Muslim violence is explained accordingly.

And third, liberals tend to be afraid of the truly evil. That's why the liberal newspapers of America refused to publish the Danish cartoons, probably the most newsworthy cartoons ever drawn, but have never had any hesitance about showing cartoons and photos that mock Jewish and Christian symbols. Christians and Jews don't kill editors.

We don't know who will be the next target of Islamic or other murderers from poor or non-Western or non-white groups. All we can know is that liberal and leftist thought will find reasons to hold the targeted group largely responsible.

This guy tips his hand early and often.

By continuously saying terms like "The Left" "Good and Evil" "Innocent" and "Blame," he succeeds in creating an "Us against Them" argument that, emotionally, usually wins, but, intellectually, renders his point of view pointless and mute.

What exactly is The Left he keeps talking about anyway?

Actually, the question should not be WHAT but WHERE? All I can see are ultra-reactionary religious types, (Like Pat Robertson, John Ashcroft, Bin Laden) hardcore laissez-faire capitalists (Like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Prince Doobie-Woobie bin al Cinder of Dubai) and Assholes (Fernando Ferrer).

Consider that we are a country:

Where a large portion of the country pound their fists on tables and huff and puff till they are red in the face about that “Flaming Liberal” Hillary Clinton.

Where the concept of socialized medicine is demonized by WORKING PEOPLE, much to the delight of insurance and pharmaceutical companies, whose executives congratulate themselves on being able to “sell ice cubes to Eskimos” and ejaculate in their pants every time they think of how much money they make every time they take a shit.

Where scientific research is retarded and/or prevented because “there are some things Man was not supposed to know.”

Where the population is so afraid of sex and their own sexuality that the sight of a woman’s bare breast caused an “outrage” so expansive that grown men and women, cultured citizens of a “progressive” society, applauded loudly as censors went to work on taking away our most primary human quality: The ability to express ourselves

Pondering the current state of our culture, it is not so much of a stretch to say that we skew wildly to the right and to talk about “left wings” is patently absurd.

And if we must play the Bill O'Reilly/Karl Rove patented "Blame Game,"I blame that crazy radical religious cult for this sorry state of anti-humanism. The ones whose dogmatic ways placed them squarely at odds with Western style Democracy. The ones who waged holy wars against their infidel neighbors, singing about God while giving a wink and a nod to genocide. The ones whose society was controlled by maniacal religious zealots who would kill or maim women for adultery and publicly humiliate and torment anybody who wore the wrong clothes. The ones who hated their more enlightened neighbors for their freedom.

Of course, I am talking about The Puritans.





Certainly, and I can’t believe I have to say this, I do not blame the victims of any terrorist attacks and, furthermore, anyone who does is wrong. But Mr. Prager thinks that what is, and has been going on in the world is a question of "good" and "evil." I suggest that view is childish. Does he think that the United States is Little Red Riding Hood, innocently traveling through the woods to Grandma’s house with a basket of freshly picked Strawberries, minding our own business, when all of a sudden the Big Bad Wolf attacked us? I am sure that is not the analogy this guy would use but isn't that what he is actually saying?

Isn't that fairy tale...and that is a very apt description of what this gentleman purports to believe in...the basis of any attacks upon "The Left," or really any adult who understands that we live in a world of 5(?) billion people? Isn’t this Pollyannish idea the ammunition which is consistently used against any adult that merely suggests the possibility that a thousand years of European colonial foreign policy...a policy that was continued by the Post War United States producing such sweethearts like Ngo Dinh Diem, Manuel Noriega and The Shah of Iran...and the exploitation of their natural resources, might have something to do with the resentment that many people feel towards us?

Why wouldn't we think there would be horrific violence as a result, did you expect them to yell “Trick or Treat” at us?

I can understand a ten year old being taught American History for the first time believing that but a mature adult?

But I do agree with his opinion about newspaper editors and publishers. I believe there is a double standard when it comes to mocking religious icons with the primary reason being fear. As Mr. Prager points out, publishers shy away from offending Muslims but do not care about offending others because, “…Christians and Jews don't kill editors.”

Well, not any more.

And there in lies the rub.

Political and social strife IS a matter of haves and have-nots. Unrest is usually a product of, a reaction to, an enforcement of or a rebellion against the current system. A system that non-progressive, status quo type people champion as if the human spirit can be reduced to a cash register, a Nielsen rating or a sales demographic chart. A system that makes the United States of America, and white people in general, a have and places like Africa, South America and large swaths of Asia (Condescendingly referred to as “The Third World”) a have-not. How long is the current situation going to last? China, a nation with roughly five times our population, is still under an even more reactionary totalitarian regime so it is a safe bet that it will be for at least the length of Mr. Prager’s lifetime.

I seriously believe that is all that he is really concerned about anyway.

But if he wants to explain the global situation…or any situation…in terms of good and evil, I’m not going to stop him. Millions of people around the world believe in these mystical forces. For that matter millions of people also believe in Voodoo hexes, Talking Snakes and The National Enquirer, so who am I to argue? But, as a practical matter, I would like to suggest that he remove himself from the discussion, take his Oodles of Noodles and go back to the kiddie table. Let the grown-ups deal with things. All I ask is when are we going to be treated like adults?

I guess, probably, when we start acting like one.

Starting with the Republican takeover of Congress in the mid-nineties, we have now had roughly twelve years of this kind of fear-based, hate mongering, politics of division which is the true sub-text of Prager’s article. I know chronologically twelve years is less than the tiniest speck, of the tiniest grain of sand on the infinite beach of time and space. But, in terms of Washington politics, twelve years represents an eternity and definitely qualifies as a “track record.”

After assessing this Administration’s track record, their total lack of accountability and responsibility for the score of failures on their watch and the sum total of their practical policies as well as the spiritual road that their “leadership” is driving us down…after considering all of these factors…you can honestly…and I mean honestly…say to yourself

“Right on brother!”

Then all I can say is God Speed.

But, again, the position he described as "The Left" does not apply to me because, I try, to think for myself.

In other words:

I yam what I yam.

Larry