Shorter Greg Gutfeld
Posted on August 9th, 2008 by
ABOVE: Greg Gutfeld
Men would only ever have sex with women’s butts if it weren’t for breasts.
Bonus quote:
In a sense, my eyes are like two little infants, who also need sustenance.
Link thanks to abdiel, who suggested these shorters:
Female breasts are designed to attract men to have sex with the front of a woman, which leads to species survival, rather than having sex with the rear of a woman, which leads to species destruction. Leering at womens’ breasts is critical to human survival.
This is all true, you know. Most mammals, including dogs, do it “doggy style” and they hardly ever reproduce OH WAIT NO THEY DO ALL THE TIME DUH.
You know, if I was a dude, I don’t think I’d want to admit that I’m too stupid to know which hole I’m supposed to aim for without getting guidance from the dirty pillows.
Really though from an evolutionary bio perspective, breasts are thought to be sexy in that they in some way resemble the ass of a bent-over woman. They’re much larger than they need to be for nursing.
Are we sure this guy’s not joshing us? I mean, his banner does proclaim his blog to be “a handkerchief of hard news soaked in a sneeze of thought snot.”
Also, does he remind anyone else of the Pensacola Christian College “eye babies” thing?
I mean, as a dude, I am hardwired to stare at breasts. Sorry – it’s a biological fact, backed up by reams of data proving mammaries are magnets for the male eye.
So many of us die of starvation once we discover the internet.
Gutfield does indeed believe he is a humorist. Can’t figure out how there might be a funny perspective to this squib however.
I agree as well. Here’s the last part of a “rant” on global warming from a couple of days ago:
He’s also been an ass at HuffPo.
Gutfeld is that drunken frat douche at every bar sporting a spray tan, silver jewelery and a pack of Newports, calling his “friends” faggots and playing Jay-Z because he thinks doing so makes him cool. Only he’s that guy times 1,000.
Oh, and he may come here and post because you’ve given him attention. Other ass-hammers from Red-Eye pop up at Newshounds when their 3am time slot filler gets ragged on.
Also a former something-or-other at RedEye on Fox News.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/greg-gutfeld/#blogger_bio
He’s not joshing us. He’s joshing the Pajamas Media audience, who find boob-oggling misogyny funny in a literal, as opposed to ironic, sense.
Well, Gutfield is an idiot, in that he fails to really understand some fact he heard, but the underlying idea is right (or, at least, widely accepted in evolutionary circles). Theoretically, oversized human breasts evolved to encourage face-to-face mating, which in turn is supposed to encourage pair bonding, which is evolutionarily beneficial to the female, as she can spend less time gathering resources, instead allowing the male to do it for her.
Thanks Marco.
And what was H&M thinking? It’s single-mom central there.
Theoretically, oversized human breasts evolved to encourage face-to-face mating
I find faces a pretty good spur for this kind of thing.
The fact is, liberals would rather talk about sex, use dirty words and obsess over bodily functions than engage in reasoned discourse and fact-based debate.
“Theoretically, oversized human breasts evolved to encourage face-to-face mating
I find faces a pretty good spur for this kind of thing.”
Yeah, but all primates have faces, but only humans mate face-to-face. No other primates have oversized breasts when they’re not breastfeeding, though.
Are we sure this guy’s not joshing us?
I’m sure he meant for it to be funny. If only funny had boobs so he’d have known which way to go about it!
In a sense, Gutfeld’s humor is like tapioca pudding that’s been sitting on a window sill for a week that should be washed down the disposal before the stench gets any worse.
He doesn’t bother taking a side in the battle between the nursing mothers and the store, because that would interfere with his real point, which is that he likes looking at boobies.
To demonstrate how timely and topical Gutfeld’s post was, its comments compare the situation to a Married… With Children episode.
This comment isn’t very funny either, but in my defense I wasn’t trying to be funny. What’s the Gut’s excuse?
Yeah, but all primates have faces, but only humans mate face-to-face.
We also invented toothbrushes.
The fact is, liberals would rather talk about sex, use dirty words and obsess over bodily functions than engage in reasoned discourse and fact-based debate.
… you make it sound like a BAD thing.
only humans mate face-to-face
Who are you calling “human”, baldy?
More:
Yeah, but all primates have faces
They’re ugly though.
Theoretically, oversized human breasts evolved to encourage face-to-face mating
And we all died out because of tit-fucking.
Theoretically, oversized human breasts evolved to encourage face-to-face mating
Because we all want to suck ass!
And we all died out because of tit-fucking.
Tit-fucking by swans, to be more specific.
Don’t worry, school is starting up again soon and Gutfeld will be too busy with homework to produce much “humor.”
RB is on fire!
Gary Ruppert calling for “fact-based debate” is like Osama bin-Laden calling an al Quaeda meeting at Hooters…
mikey
Tit-fucking by swans
Leda? I don’t even know her!
Take me to your leda!
Yeah, but all primates have faces, but only humans mate face-to-face.
We also invented toothbrushes.
Evolutionary psychology just describes people perfectly- until you find that group of humans which goes totally against your theory, and is totally thriving.
We also invented dirty movies, where humans rarely if ever mate face-to-face.
RB is on fire!
We should see whether RB becomes equally inspired, every time he comes back from conversations about telepathic parrots over at Crooked Timber. It may be a causal factor.
Theoretically, oversized human breasts evolved to encourage face-to-face mating, which in turn is supposed to encourage pair bonding, which is evolutionarily beneficial to the female
True. We all know that the presence of breasts causes the normal human male to pay more attention to the face of their owner.
Umm, dude, it’s not like primates use butthole brushes….
I’d rather smell a dirty mouth than a dirty ass.
conversations about telepathic parrots
THAT IS AN EX-CONVERSATION-ABOUT-TELEPATHIC-PARROTS!
Humans are also the only species that mates in the reverse-cowgirl position, the only species that practices bukakke, and the only species that stacks up dollar bills to entice its females to dance around poles.
What does evolutionary psychology have to say about all that?
it’s not like primates use butthole brushes….
In fact they do, but the event goes unrecorded, because they have not invented digital cameras.
Umm, dude, it’s not like primates use butthole brushes….
You try and try and try to jam the brushes up there and they start biting. They’ll never learn. Welp, back to the monkey cage.
I mean, as a dude, I am hardwired to stare at breasts. Sorry – it’s a biological fact, backed up by reams of data proving mammaries are magnets for the male eye.
True that, dude. Every time I see a pic of Hugh Hewitt’s succulent man boobs, they become like tractor beams for my eyes.
And why beholdest thou the boobie that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the tractor beam that is in thine own eye?
Shorter Shorter Gutfeld: “Thanks for the Mammaries…”
We also invented dirty movies, where humans rarely if ever mate face-to-face.
Duh. How else are you supposed to see the money shot?
A bonobo said,
August 9, 2008 at 1:03
only humans mate face-to-face
Who are you calling “human”, baldy?
Right on.
http://scienceblogs.com/bushwells/2008/04/bonking_in_the_name_of_science.php
(use advanced cut-n-paste technology to bypass any possible redirects)
Also, some bonobos kinda have boobs even when they’re not nursing.
One of the more Righteous characteristics of our Bubba is his patience with these assclowns.
He sometimes has to speak to them firmly, but he never seems to get frustrated with their dishonesty OR their madness…
mikey
Well, not exactly…
Then why do gay men go ga-ga over ripped pecs? Answer me that!
Jrod, we are not the only species that practices bukakke. You got your salmon, your frogs, heck, your Egyptian Mouth-Breeders even.
Y’know, not every human society fetishizes female breasts, yet they all manage to have pair-bonding and figure out how reproduction works.
In other words, it’s more evo-bio bullshit.
Y’know, not every human society fetishizes female breasts, yet they all manage to have pair-bonding and figure out how reproduction works.
Oh yeah?
I bet they still fiddle with ’em every chance they get…
mikey
There’s lots of things about humans that encourage pair-bonding and reproduction; it’s not just breasts. And a lot of evolutionary psychology is really Just So Stories, and because we can’t really do a lot of experiments it’s not really as *hard* a science as, say, molecular biology, but it does allow us to make predictions about human behavior and test if they’re right.
huh huh huh
you said “hard science”
Yeah. Heh.
Boioioioing!
HehehehHEHEheheheh.
If face-to-face sex is such a fundamental part of human sexuality and pair bonding, how come Christians had to travel all around the world teaching people about the missionary position?
They didn’t, really — the “missionary position” was popular in ancient China, Greece*, Rome, India, Japan, and a lot of other places. And woman-on-top face-to-face positions (like (non-reverse) cowgirl) were even more popular. And I would like to point out that breasts are even more awesome viewed from slightly underneath.
*Actually the ancient Greeks were also pretty into hittin’ it from behind, but this was apparently because their wives were like, you know, teenage girls and all. Plus they liked to bang other dudes, as we all know.
The fact is, without breasts, the vagina is invisible to me. It’s a Sahara desert from the navel all the way to the butthole.
Arrested Development thy name is Gutfeld
Oh and I don’t mean that teenage girls have ugly faces or something, just that the husbands tended to be a lot taller than their wives. I’m not sure how that leads to doggy-styling it. The point is that face-to-face sex was really common worldwide well before missionaries and before Masters and Johnson coined the term “missionary position”.
Boobs are cool.
But the junk kicks ASS!!
mikey
Actually the ancient Greeks were also pretty into hittin’ it from behind
Is that based on the scenes they liked to paint inside wine cups? Because it occurs to me that conclusions about the Greeks’ preferred positions drawn from their wine-cup paintings would be about as reliable as generalisations about modern habits based on money-shot p0rn.
pair bonding… is evolutionarily beneficial to the female, as she can spend less time gathering resources
Clearly MattM has never had the experience of his loved one interrupting a moment of torrid passion when she suddenly remembers something that needs to be added to the shopping list.
pair bonding
This is why throughout much of human history one could buy pairs of women and no one would look askance.
Well, going by wine-cup paintings, Greeks liked to fuck goats, and some of those guys had, like thirty motherfucking dicks.
I wonder, when our society has collapsed, how future archaeologists will view us. Will they find issues of Cosmo and think that men like being surprised with stuff jammed into our buttholes? Who knows, man.
It’s more likely that future archaeologists will find some Coke cans and determine that we liked to fuck polar bears.
Eris forbid they learn to decipher our hard drives. If they find the 4chan archive they may well decide we deserved our horrible fate, whatever it might turn out to be.
I am the Gutfeld, we are the Gutfeld, I am the Gomphus!
Thanks for the mammaries.
It’s more likely that future archaeologists will find some Coke cans and determine that we liked to fuck polar bears.
The fact is, remember some people would like to. Cigarskunk, anyone?
You’re welcome.
I was just looking at that Noonan post below and it struck me that for the presence of an “r” it could have been mass thongs of white bikers. tee hee.
mass thongs of white bikers
Oh man, that hot biker ass-crack reminds me of BOOBS! Time for hot doggy-style love!
ok, but take pictures !
Well, going by wine-cup paintings, Greeks liked to fuck goats, and some of those guys had, like thirty motherfucking dicks.
My favorite Greek wine-cup painting is the one based on a vision of the Oracle of Delphi. It depicts a guy who looks astonishingly like Mickey Kaus blowing a goat.
Man, those people had amazing powers of prediction.
Really though from an evolutionary bio perspective, breasts are thought to be sexy in that they in some way resemble the ass of a bent-over woman. They’re much larger than they need to be for nursing.
They really aren’t; consider the shape of our noses, even an infant’s nose with a reduced bridge; our nose protrudes out, but our nostrils point down. Compare that to other primates, whose noses may protrude out, but the nostrils are significantly more forward-facing.
Now consider a nursing infant; with a flat breast, a forward-nostril infant has no problem breathing and nursing at the same time. However, a infant with a human-like nose would have to crush the bridge of the nose up into ther mother’s ribcage in order to latch on, closing off the nostrils and making breathing difficult; the infant would have to release several times in order to breathe, making nursing a longer and more difficult affair.
On the other hand, with a large breast, an in fant with a human-like nose has no problem breathing while latched on.
Secondly, remember that amongst primates, human females have a disguised estrus; we can’t tell when a woman is ovulating without a fairly accurate thermometer and even then, it’s a bit of guesswork based on the recent diet and lifestyle. In normal primates, estrus is advertised by a swelling of the breasts, amongst other signals; however, since humans can’t select mates during their fertile period thanks to a disguised estrus, we pair-bond for longer periods to females who will be fertile for at least some part of that bonding; in order to ensure that we pair-bond with females who are sexually mature, our women develop obvious differentiable secondary sexual characteristics like large breasts and wide hips, unlike many other primate females who maintain roughly the same proportions throughout life.
Wide hips are also required to birth large-headed human children (and really, human children are born physically premature, simply because if they developed in the womb much longer the head would be large enough to kill one or the other during birth)
It’s all a be circle of life, but it’s a bit simplistic to justify “breasts are large because we find them sexy”; it makes more sense to say “large breasts are considered sexy because they signal certain things about the woman” (Lolo Ferrari aside, I suppose.)
Gutfeld is that drunken frat douche at every bar sporting a spray tan, silver jewelery and a pack of Newports, calling his “friends” faggots and playing Jay-Z because he thinks doing so makes him cool. Only he’s that guy times 1,000.
Don’t forget that Guido hairdo (or, more likely in this case, toupee) with the frosted tips – always so dashing on fat balding humps in their 40s. You can almost smell the Hai Karate & Jagermeister. The comment section is both depressing & unintentionally hilarious: like a textbook diagram of Darwin’s Little Also-Rans.
But the byline is a bullseye – thought snot, indeed. Too bad he’s got the ongoing urge to open up his hankie & show everyone what he just horked up. Funny like a hangnail.
Apparently Tobin Harshaw at the NYT is onto Mickey. The first sentence of his dissection of l’affaire Edwards:
O.K., Mickey Kaus has a whole weekend to gloat.
Blow. Goat. Gloat. Works for me.
Greeks liked to fuck goats, and some of those guys had, like thirty motherfucking dicks.
I was not familiar with that particular version of the Oedipus myth.
Maybe I was thinking of George Washington, but it was probably the ancient Greek god uh … Polyphalloides, yeah, that’s the ticket.
ok, but take pictures !
I’m painting a vase RIGHT NOW!
No, don’t sweat it doc.
If it’s really old, really bizarre and includes suffering, death and sodomy, my man Herr Smut has a painting of it hanging in his downstairs bathroom…
mikey
And Bubba has a Ming Vase.
But he dropped it coming down the stairs…
mikey
The Purple Avenger keeps commenting at Confederate Stankee’s place. Can one of the available SadlyNaughts please do a post on him again?
Thanks.
I am a lonely old man with eleven teeth and stained underpants.
Dammit, do I ever suck…
I could go on quite the diatribe re: breasts and human sexuality. But last time I tried, wordpress wouldn’t let me submit it. So fuck it. No pun intended.
Just claim to be Gary Ruppert, Some Guy.
You get an automatic pass from WordPress….
mikey
it was probably the ancient Greek god uh … Polyphalloides
Results 1 – 20 of about 292 for ancient greek tentacle hentai. (0.23 seconds)
it’s true.
Hey that Katsushika Hokusai fellow who did the famous picture of a wave also did some interesting
tentacle hentai.
hehehe someone up there said “Masters and Johnson”
I once went fishing with Masters and Johnson.
Masters was weird about baiting his hook.
Johnson had to do Master’s Baiting…
mikey
Ahhh, the President and his wife at the Olympics, showing their deep respect for other nations:
I finally get to type “rusty trombone.” Thank you Mr. Gutfeld.
“The Naked Ape” by Desmond Morris. Printed in the 1960’s it was a bestseller. Guy must’ve found it in a bus station waiting room, or in a dumpster underneath a Round Table Pizza box with a half-piece of pizza still there, plus that little ‘table’ thing they put in the middle.
… Mr Morris suggested a woman’s breasts resembled the ass…her red lips the labia and so on. He didn’t address why women didn’t have beards rather than men. Heh.
Johnson had to do Master’s Baiting…
Low low blow. Dwarf fellatio even.
Shorter me: “GREGALOGUE” staring at my breasts would feel like rape.
Fuck of man “biologically wired” to treat women like shit. Crawl back in your cave and die.
Outraged enough for ya? No? How about a nice swift kick in the gonads.
“Leaky lady” indeed.
Mr Morris suggested a woman’s breasts resembled the ass
IIRC, he went on to propose that a woman’s knees and shoulders are in turn smoothly curvaceous, in order to remind the onlooker of her breasts. Not that he was personally obsessed or anything.
Morris’ whole line of reasoning struck me at the time as a bit non-parsimonious. Surely it would be easier for Evolution to rewire male sexuality and inspire males with an attraction to the front of females as they were, than to retain a (hypothetical) attraction to callipygian buttocks, while engineering breasts that would re-divert that attraction.
And a lot of evolutionary psychology is really Just So Stories
What part is not?
My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand.
His head is as the most fine gold, his locks are bushy, and black as a raven.
His cheeks are as a bed of spices, as sweet flowers: his lips like lilies, dropping sweet smelling myrrh.
His eyes are like two little infants, who also need sustenance.
Greg Gutfeld redux:
Speaking of assholes whose sense of humour elude me, Chris Muir cranked the suggestiveness up a notch today. I wonder why he bothers with clothes at all. He should just have his characters fucking in every panel while they’re talking drivel.
If only funny had boobs so he’d have known which way to go about it!
This made me laugh, unlike Gutfeld (shorter: “TITTIES! Snorf, snorf.”)
There’s also the theory that men like looking at breasts because so many of them have never had as satisfactory a relationship with another human being as they did with their mommy’s feeding stations. Although I’ve always liked the Just So Story, popularized by Elaine Morgan in THE DESCENT OF WOMAN, that breasts are one of many human characteristics that remain from a period of proto-human evolution when our primate ancestors *almost* became mermaids, or at least unusually dextrous sea-lions.
That would certainly explain the whole attraction to wet-suits.
“Missionary position” is not a Masters & Johnson coinage; its first recorded usage is from 1929, according to the OED. The true source is even more fun: Malinowski.
Well, no, even better, according to Malinowski:
“Tokolibeloa, once a famous Don Juan,..insisted that this was misinari si bubunela, ‘missionary fashion’, one of the novel immoralities introduced by Christianity.” So we got the term from the Trobriand Islanders, and how could it be better than that?
Thinking about it, At least half of the mass of what we call a “normal” woman’s breast nowadays is due to good nutrition, something usually very lacking for most of humanities history.
There is a serious evolutionary advantage in anything which adapts the female body to be more capable of keeping the little ones fed in a time of famine. It isn’t much of a stretch to imagine the same adaptions could lead to humongous titties during times with plenty of food.
After all, where is the evolutionary disadvantage in having big knockers? Okay, it makes you run a bit slower, thats it. There isn’t anything to select against that trait. Evolution doesn’t require something to be actively selected for, just that it doesn’t carry any serious disadvantage.
Women carry a lot of their fat in their boobs. For most of human history, fat girls have been the most popular kind. Big titties = that ones gunna survive the winter. Hence, an attractive thing. The fact that western society still likes big tits despite liking skinny girls is a sociological thing. Yeah, THAT could be simply because tits are fun..
I’ve heard that a woman can’t get pregnant through doggy-style sex.
… on the other hand, while starring at breasts, a guy should wear a condom.
Can’t we have a nice conversation, just once, about women’s breasts/titties/dynamitecharlies without bringing a hack like gutfeld into it?
Um, Andrew: You’ve never actually breastfed a child, have you?
I would also suggest that the consumption of meat shot full of growth hormones has had more to do with the development of larger breasts than the evolutionary reproductive position psychology stuff thingy.
Women carry a lot of their fat in their boobs
SOME women carry “a lot of fat” in their “boobs,” a/k/a “breasts.” These are the women to whom the shallowest end of the male gene pool is attracted because of the fat percentage in their breast tissue. Nevertheless, in order to satisfy the cultural edict that a woman must resemble as closely as possible the male fantasy vision of an airbrushed sexbot, women with less fat in their breasts frequently have plastic bags of saline or silicone inserted surgically in order to simulate the requisite larger bags of fat.
So in conclusion, men who say they “just can’t help themselves, they’re wired to lust after female breasts,” do not mean small, drooping, stretchmarked or flat women’s breasts, but rather, balloon- and/or fat-filled breasts.
Again with the sitting at the end of a thread and the commenting to one’s self. [sigh]
Attraction to big tits isn’t a universal thing at all. The French are of the opinion that “a handful is enough” Personally I tend to agree, but think the optimum size depends on a woman’s body type. It’s all about pleasing proportions.
Men with an extremely simple or excessively rigid idea of what makes a sexually attractive woman, are usually childish, nasty little trolls.
MzNicky:
I bet there’s something useable in evo psych, underneath all the fables, nonsense, and bullshit.
atheist: No doubt there’s something useable in the theories. But as my fellow Boomer-age mothers and I have noted with increasing alarm, we never saw so many prepubescent and adolescent girls with C-cup breasts as we have in the last 15 years.
Men with an extremely simple or excessively rigid idea of what makes a sexually attractive woman, are usually childish, nasty little trolls.
with small penises.
Men with an extremely simple or excessively rigid idea of what makes a sexually attractive woman, are usually childish, nasty little trolls.
Yup, and I always get the feeling that the ranks of evo-psych proponents are lousy with them.
I bet there’s something useable in evo psych, underneath all the fables, nonsense, and bullshit.
I’m not convinced of this, but I think its findings are useful as a guide to what we humans, now equipped with the ability to reflect on our actions, can outgrow. I understand that we’re animals like all the others, but to me a big part of being a liberal has to do with getting past all the tribalism and territorialism and being excellent to each other.
I think that the evo-psych lit, especially what filters down to the mainstream press and the popular imagination, is about as useful for exploring human biology as the Native American trickster tales are for geology and zoology.
That is, they make great reading/listening, but say more about what we think about ourselves than why we think that way.
I agree that evo psych is useful for telling us where we came from, which is always useful when you need to figure out where you want to go.
Using evo psych as an ethical justification is utterly fucking stupid. That is, unless you consider reproduction as the highest ethical principle.
Evolution is the process by which group entities like species and societies, adapt to changing circumstances. Guess what though? Our happy little society exists in circumstances we have an unprecedented amount of control over. Our competition is gone. We shot them all. The only thing that can kill us now is our own behaviour.
Now its all arse-backwards. We have to choose the circumstances that lead our development in the direction we want. Nobody really thinks the stone age was a fun situation to be in do they? We know we don’t want to replicate THAT society.
Oh wait. Acknowledging that would mean examining our behaviour, and developing a complex code of ethics. Fuck it. Lets throw our faeces at the scary thing and jump up and down and yell in the hope that it feels threatened and runs away. After all, that worked great for the last million years.
The fact is, Obama really looks bad after being called out about his patriotism on national TV in Ohio. The guy who demanded he say the pledge had the right idea. He is a hero, and the crowd was with him, proof that here in the heartland we respect our traditions, our flag and our troops. The MSM seems to be ignoring this, though. The liberal bloggers are on camera harassing him and have also called someone with the same name and made death threats, which is how the “sensitive” and “tolerant” left deals with free speech they don’t like.
I understand that we’re animals like all the others, but to me a big part of being a liberal has to do with getting past all the tribalism and territorialism and being excellent to each other.
YES!!
You cannot advance a civilization if you believe the members of that civilization are “hard-wired” to do certain things that an advanced civilization would cease doing. Things like forming organizations dedicated to killing large numbers of other humans in an efficient, industrial fashion. Things like defining the punishment for certain “abhorrent” crimes based on vengeance rather than society’s needs. Things like not using the wealth of a society to feed, clothe, educate and provide for ALL the citizens of that society.
We have to BELIEVE that these things we do are choices, bad, outmoded choices and that we can choose to build a different society.
Then all we have to do is figure out how to cause the greedy, opportunist, powerful leadership to move in that direction. As long as they profit more from the ancient, tribal status quo, the rest of us will just be helpless actors on their stages…
mikey
The fact is, if you will not recite the pledge when everyone elese is, I have no sympathy for you. You have the right, but we also have the right, to think of you as a traitor and to call you out as one. You chose not to participate, now reap. People who do not salute the flag, wear lapel pins and pledge — and we are UNDER GOD, this is a Christian Nation, it is part of our heritage and identity — you do not belong here.
The fact is, if you will not sing “God save the Queen” when everyone elese is, I have no sympathy for you. Traitorous colonials.
Ahh. Thanks, Gary.
Glad you cleared that up for me.
‘Cause there’s always been this question – what is patriotism? How do you define it?
And now you’ve explained it. You make loud, ostentatious demonstrations, indeed, protestations of your love of country. Hell, it’s got NOTHING to do with what you do, what you contribute, what you sacrifice.
It’s about reciting “the pledge”. Saluting a flag. Wearing a PIN. On your lapel. So a poor man without a lapel is a traitor unless he goes to Men’s Wearhouse right away, huh?
You know, the sad, repellent sickness that Gary rants about, defining as those who seek to make their nation better, who seek to help their fellow humans, who seek to honor the original compact between the governors and the governed expressed in the american constitution as traitors is real. It is the way many, if not most americans think. They have lost any way of defining their commitment to their nation, and instead believe it can only be expressed in slobbering, unquestioning love and devotion, even if only to a broken system headed by a cabal of sneering kleptocrats.
If I was to be honest, I’d have to say I am coming to hate my country…
mikey
Bernie Mac died.
And Morgan Freeman Jr. is still hospitalized.
A right-wing conspiracy to eliminate Obama’s well-heeled celeb supporters? Irresponsible not to speculate and so forth.
Mikey.. What IS a country? It’s a bit of land. It’s a set of laws. It’s a community of people. Every part of it is really something else. A nation is a category, not a real thing.
Often, a country isn’t even a very well defined category. Look at the types who keep trying to define even other citizens as not part of America. “made in USA” is the only thing all the component parts of America have in common.
Now, why the hell would you want to love anything just because it has the right label on it?
Fuck it. Scrape the “made in the USA” label off everything and judge it on its own merits. The stars and stripes are a rubbish piece of design, it is far too fussy, and red white and blue are overused in flags.
Fake Gary number N said:
“The fact is, if you will not recite the pledge when everyone elese is, I have no sympathy for you. You have the right, but we also have the right, to think of you as a traitor and to call you out as one. You chose not to participate, now reap.”
This is probably a parody, I get that. Nonetheless, I know people who think almost exactly this way. Somebody sent me an email the other day about how Obama had taken the flag off the tail of his airplane when it was repainted (go see the snopes article for details). I called bullshit on it sight unseen because the whole “Obama isn’t a patriot” meme is such crap.
I expected my Republican “friend” to argue. What I didn’t expect was for another recipient of the email, someone I’d have expected to be a little more thoughtful, to chime in about how she was uncomfortable that Obama was so shy about wrapping himself in the flag.
It’s gonna be a long 90 days, I can promise you that.
You cannot advance a civilization if you believe the members of that civilization are “hard-wired” to do certain things that an advanced civilization would cease doing.
The whole ‘hard-wired’ idea is horseshit anyhow. The idea that human behavior can be well-described by using computer science metaphors is basically a modern myth that we should do away with. We don’t act like computers. We act like smarter monkeys.
Humans definitely have tendencies that come out of our biology. But they’re really broad. People who think we’re hard-wired to do anything are just revealing the limits of their imaginations.
Why does his name always remind me of Geliant Gutfright?
Hey, look on the bright side. At least he didn’t claim he should be able to pee wherever he wants.
(I’ve always thought that columnists who use that line should immediately have their faces dunked in an unflushed toilet repeatedly until they learn the difference between urine and mother’s milk.)
Annie Laurie: Decent of Women: I really enjoyed that book, and some of it made sense! When I was a girl I dreamed of being a mermaid; what fun it would have been. Disney ruined that notion- UG!
Shorter Sadly,No!:
“We couldn’t find any unicorns to look at, so we found this immature post by a seldom-cited winger to distract us from the Edwards-Hunter-Kaus-goat non-scandal.
Yes, we’re that desperate.
I expected my Republican “friend” to argue. What I didn’t expect was for another recipient of the email, someone I’d have expected to be a little more thoughtful, to chime in about how she was uncomfortable that Obama was so shy about wrapping himself in the flag.
OneMan, whenever I hear that shit it just makes me think that as a nation, the US is screwed, as it seems to be such a widespread view.
Its just a piece of fucken cloth, fer crists sake…
Goober, take some notes from Gary. You’re never gonna graduate from wanker to junior troll if you don’t apply yourself.
There’s a reason scoundrels wrap themselves in a flag and carry a cross! It works (with a sizable percentage, anyway).
Mikey, Roosevelt had a good idea what to do about distribution of wealth BACK to those who actually generate it. That’s why the Repug-Conservatives-Neocons loathe him.
Did someone mention Kaus and goats? I hear he has little wardrobes for them to wear. And tiny stilleto pumps.
Yes, it’s a great pity about the Edwards affair. But happily this is a great excuse to start examining the McCain affair. He did the proper thing by abandoning his sick wife instead of sticking with her and the kids. It’s ever so much better to dump her. And what of Cindy? Doesn’t say much for her morals either, the little pill-popping tramp.
That was me, sigh.
We act like smarter monkeys.
Heh, you wish.
Liquor in the front, Poker in the rear.
OK, we act like more language-oriented monkeys- how about that?
Ewww.
Just ewww.
I understand that we’re animals like all the others, but to me a big part of being a liberal has to do with getting past all the tribalism and territorialism and being excellent to each other.
Well, liberalism is just another tribe, a world view, an ideology like the others. I think that it has a better handle on “what works” than the current flavor of conservatives but it’s a mistake for liberals to believe they are somehow better than others in some abstract sense.
You cannot advance a civilization if you believe the members of that civilization are “hard-wired” to do certain things that an advanced civilization would cease doing
Maybe, but what if it’s true? What if there are behaviors that are genetically encoded and not easily changed that go against our political or social values? Personally I think it’s a mix. There are soft bits and hard bits but I’ve known of biologists who make the case that altruism doesn’t really exist. That free will doesn’t even exist. I’m not sure how one argues against that.
I love it. The fact that the tail design was the trademarked logo of the airline means nothing to these idiots.
Well, liberalism is just another tribe, a world view, an ideology like the others.
Hm. I suppose so, so I should be more specific – what repels me about what I consider “tribalism” is the sense that anyone not belonging to the tribe needs to be run off or killed. The ideological tribe I belong to is partly defined by not being that kind of tribe, if you could but dig it.
I’ve known of biologists who make the case that altruism doesn’t really exist. That free will doesn’t even exist. I’m not sure how one argues against that.
I’ve decided I’ll pretend I have free will and act accordingly. If I find out later that I never did, my bad.
And to play devil’s advocate with myself. On the other hand the classic experiment in epi-genetics is they bred genetically calm and nervous rats. Then took a nervous baby rat and let a calm mother raise it. That rat not only grew up calm, but it’s children were calm also. They were still genetically nervous but that gene was simply not expressed in later generations.
So really, perhaps what the likes of Gary Rupert needs is calmer, more liberal mothers. Perhaps a vicious environment only triggers their worst behavior?
Come over here Gary and get your hugs.
Seconded on the mix of biology & culture & intelligence & randomness.
I don’t really think anyone’s proven altruism “doesn’t exist”. They’ve just shown that altruistic behavior looks a lot different when you put it under a microscope.
Well, it seems to me that competition is a universal constant. Competition for resources, for a mate, for power and position in the hierarchy, for “wealth”, however a given society defines it.
So I guess the more accurate unanswered (unanswerable?) question is can humans create a society where competition exists, but does not ultimately result in killing or subjugating other humans.
If not, it’s gonna be a short trip to the end of the ride…
mikey
Confused.
Wouldn’t having sex with breasts preclude having kids?
Do the fundies know that breasts are tools of Satan?
…can humans create a society where competition exists, but does not ultimately result in killing or subjugating other humans.
I think so. It’s the one thing I like best about professional sports – that they might act as a nonviolent release for that competitive drive.
Though the soccer yobs and the American post-Superbowl looters and all kind of foul that idea up.
Humans are very good at transferring their competitive instincts into trivial things. Turn on the Olympics for an example, or watch your neighbour park his new car where you can see it. The world cup is like a ritualised world war 3. Humans will turn anything into a competition.
What we need to do is move the definition of wealth. Different societies all have different indicators of wealth and success. These can vary an awful lot, and sometimes don’t have much to do with money or direct power. Look at countries more liberal than the USA. Status takes on a different colour. Education counts for more than money, and discerning taste has a higher status than mere conspicuous consumption.
Can it all be reversed? Can sacrifice and austerity be a source of status, and consumption and gluttony be something shameful? Yes, it can. The second world war turned thrift and practicality into moral high ground.
Can we turn the current threats of poverty, overpopulation, and climate change into something as motivating as german bombers? It’s not easy, because it doesn’t press the same emotional buttons.
At least we have many esoteric subcultures with their own arbitrary status symbols to take some pressure off, by creating people with their status seeking mechanism aimed in the direction of owning a penny black stamp, or running a 4 minute mile.
I think ultimately, we have to KILL CORPORATE CULTURE. People who are not involved in big business are much more likely to go find a subculture and play the game. It is the people who wear a tie that have the moral compass pointed straight to $$$. They compete with other office workers on salary, the cost of their company car, the size of their office.. And that is where it starts.
We all play status games. But Capitalism is the status game where the first to loose are those that don’t really want to play.
So it is simple really. Encourage the playing of games, just ban the use of human beings as playing pieces.
Round up a group of CEOs, and lock them in a room with a Monopoly board and a bottle of scotch. They would be just as happy.
Fozetti, there are lots of people of both sexes who find the whole mermaid idea enchanting. At least part of it, I think, is the feeling that water-breathing creatures have a “freedom”, a weightlessness, the ability to move in three dimensions that we land-crawlers have lost. Also, as Morgan pointed out in her book, otters and sea-lions always look like they’re having so much fun…
The stars and stripes are a rubbish piece of design, it is far too fussy, and red white and blue are overused in flags.
I have to disagree. The graphic designers of the American flag, I think, managed a wonderful balance between too-simple and too-fussy. The red/white/blue combo is popular because it’s easy to replicate. The particular Stars’n’Stripes pattern is distinctive enough that “our” flag can be identified instantly even in black & white or among a sea of other flags, and the simplicity of the individual elements has given artists an excellent palette for reworking them. Consider, as a counter-example, the old-versus-new flags of Ireland: the “old” flag pattern was so hard to replicate that people joked about the Tara harp looking more like a blotch of spilled Guiness, and the “new” flag is not only generic but sadly inapt for face-painting since kelly green & orange do *not* look good on most individuals of Irish descent.
Admittedly, in a perfect world, Waving the Flag would be a far less popular pastime generally. But in this world, being an “American” is ideally about choosing to be one element in a multicolored graphic — our infinitely re-designable flag is well matched for a political ideology where membership is defined by affirmation, not by bloodline or birthright. Despite the ravings of the VFR flag-wavers, the fact that anybody can elect to become An American is still one of our best national treasures!
There are biologists who argue that altruism doesn’t exist? Excellent, I’ve been saying that for years. Now if I could only get someone to agree with me that sarcasm doesn’t exist either.
I think it’s important to examine/talk about/wonder about what humans are “hard-wired” to do, because if we want to get beyond the default state of setting up our society to reinforce our no-longer-useful instincts (irrationalities) we need to have some understanding of what they are. So if it turns out that Battle of the Bands type competitions can fulfill some deep-seated “need” we have to compete with the neighboring troop for beets or something, then hey, maybe we don’t have to have as many pointless wars, and that seems like a pretty worthwhile reason to study stuff like that. Any scientific findings, even hard science, are going to be misinterpreted and misunderstood by some popularizers, and will be used by ignorant and hateful jerks as justification for their ignorant and hateful behaviors, but that’s not something we can stop by not doing research anymore.
a bit non-parsimonious. Surely it would be easier for Evolution to rewire …
Evolution doesn’t really “rewire” stuff, at least not in the “that behavior’s no longer useful so let’s get rid of it” way. For one thing, it’s an unguided process, a book written by an author (mutation) that’s essentially monkeys hitting typewriters, and an editor (natural selection) that can only say “no, you die” or “good enough”. The result of evolution isn’t an organism that lives the best possible live; it’s a bunch of organisms that do well enough to reproduce better than their competitors. So you wind up keeping an old and no longer useful instinct, like the urge to jump off the balcony and grab that branch. Instead of getting rid of it, which would make sense if evolution were operating “rationally”, you get a new instinct patched in, like a fear of heights. And this interacts oddly with self-consciousness, so you spend years wondering why you have these self-destructive jumping-off-things obsessions. Anyway it’s all kludgey like a machine or software that’s been fixed and updated by generations of engineers who don’t communicate with each other or leave adequate documentation.
Oh yeah, also: when someone devotes their entire career to being a community organizer and then a politician, when they could certainly be making truly ridiculous shitloads of money instead, it’s more than a little shallow to say they’re not “patriotic” enough unless they stand the right way and recite some socialist minister’s loyalty oath for children.
When I was a girl I dreamed of being a mermaid; what fun it would have been. Disney ruined that notion- UG!
Believe me, as goopy-sweet as the Disney film was, the Hans Christian Andersen story would just depress you. (Give up your tail and voice and die anyway because the prince remains oblivious, but hey, at least you’ll probably gain a soul unlike your horrible pagan sisters.)
Gary Ruppert said,
August 9, 2008 at 0:50
The fact is, liberals would rather talk about sex, use dirty words and obsess over bodily functions than engage in reasoned discourse and fact-based debate
Brilliant, Gary. Spot on!
No, no.. Half of the problem with the stars and stripes is the lack of symmetry. The sheer number of elements is still a big problem. The stars and stripes in its first incarnation was better in that respect, but the pattern of stars was uneven.
The confederate stars and bars is actually a nicer bit of design along the same lines.
But I think two dimensional symmetry makes for a much better flag. It makes the motif easier to transfer to different shapes other than an actual flag. Radial patterns like the imperial Japanese flag or the British union flag have a lot of visual impact, and are easier for bikers to have sprayed on their helmets. Any kind of central focus point works nicely as long as it is bold enough. The Canadian maple leaf is a good example of a strong icon which is simple enough to replicate, but instantly recognisable.
And by the by.. Not everyone can elect to become an American. There are immigration and naturalisation policies. And America has always had bronze, silver and gold levels of membership. A history of mass immigration isn’t the same thing as being an open club.
American patriotism has a really confused time with reconciling lofty principles with unprincipled actions. A quick flick through a history book deflates all the pompous declarations of “What America Stands For”.
American Jingoism is largely based on those pompous declared principles, which started out as idealistic aims for a new nation to live up to, but have become somewhat symbolic, and used to claim moral high ground where actual national actions have gone in the opposite direction. Also, the main contributor to the jingoism is national success. The last century of economic success made a lot of Americans proud of the country that could bring them that success, regardless of whatever flaws it had. As long as the money flowed, everything bad got glossed over.
Now America is starting to suffer the hangover after the binge, that main driver of national pride is starting to wane. If members of a team have nothing in common, successfulness can hold them together, but they wont remain a team for long in a time of failure.
I fully expect the north/south, urban/rural, liberal/conservative divide to get worse over the coming years. For example, the stated policies of the presidential candidates are very very different for a two party state. Even considering America is known for political extremes, I think the gaps are getting wider. It is very very clear that liberals and conservatives have an extremely different view of what an ideal America looks like.
Come to think of it, it is the multiculturalism inherent in a nation with a large immigrant population and little established history, which has produced the cookie cutter backlash. Fear of multiculturalism is probably a strong motivation for those who try too hard to define and then glorify Americanism. Whether it is by espousing principles or by issuing cultural mandates of the “real Americans do X” sort, it is not so much a search for common ground, but the erecting of boundaries. “If you go beyond this point, you are no longer an American”.
Lets be honest, the most jingoistic Americans are not the sort who love ALL their countrymen, or enjoy the culture of every single state and ethnic group. Those who revel in the diversity are usually extremely low key about national pride.
Righteous Bubba said,
August 8, 2008 at 18:36
Damn you, Blue Buddha, you inveterate stealer of thunder!
Hey… Where is Thunder anyway?
I was in Rhode Island, now I’m in East Hampton. Journey back to Ohio begins tomorrow.
So now you know!
I was in Rhode Island, now I’m in East Hampton.
Pssshhhh. Eash Hampton, indeed.
Earlier today I was in Alviso.
Then, just like that, I went to Fremont.
Yeah, I know. I do get around.
It pretty much doesn’t suck to be me…
mikey
Mmmmmmmmmmm……..breasts!
Is this the unfunny asshole from RED-EYE, the show that wanted to be the unfunny conservative afterthought response to the DAILY SHOW?
I had the distinct displeasure of watching RED-EYE, and there’s nothing conservatives are worse at than satire. I guess it’s because the rich and powerful are the subjects of satire and are, thus, incapable of using it themselves. To say nothing of the very real rage and hate that kills any spirit of humor.
Conservative satire goes contrary to the basic “rules” of comedy. Don Rickles was a genius at insulting people, to be sure, but he never went after little guys. He went after big guys like Frank Sinatra. This is because (and does it need to be said?) that picking on the powerless and poor and weak isn’t funny, it’s cruel and thuggish.
WHAT DO YOU WANT TO BET that during the run of RED-EYE, this statement was given in the writers’ room at least once, with a totally earnest, clueless tone:
“So I guess the ‘Hurricane Katrina Comedy Special’ plan is canceled, or…?”
By the way, RED-EYE was canceled due to extremely low ratings.
To which I say, ha. Ha.
“OneMan, whenever I hear that shit it just makes me think that as a nation, the US is screwed, as it seems to be such a widespread view.”
I borrowed a page from the Sadly book and said “You might as well just yell ‘don’t vote for the ni**er and be done with it.” Then I challenged them to study his positions and vote based on that, not on this crap.
Then I expressed my essential optimism by noting that we’ll surely get the government we deserve.
Sigh.
RED-EYE sounds less like a red eye than a brown eye (don’t know if that’s a bit of Aussie jargon that’ll go right over everyone else’s heads, or not).
Hey, I thought it was funny.
Well, MzNicky, there are those who come even later to the thread and enjoy your comments, while sad they cannot join in to tell you at the time.
It’s abstract, but I’m sure you grasp it.
I think the reflexive patriots can’t grasp deficits, economics, social policy, and the results thereof. They know it, so they can’t make decisions based on it.
Thus, they vote for whoever screams the loudest about their devotion to vague symbols.
Not the system I would choose. And it doesn’t even work for them.
But it’s their system and they’re sticking to it!
the only species that stacks up dollar bills to entice its females to dance around poles.
If male Psittaciformes and Passerine birds were given dollar bills, I’m sure they’d use them to entice females to dance around poles. Even (well especially) fowl would do the same thing, except fowl are not smart enough to understand the concept of money.
If male Psittaciformes and Passerine birds were given dollar bills, I’m sure they’d use them to entice females to dance around poles
But would they shred them and weave them into nests?
But would they shred them and weave them into nests?
Awk … complete waste of money … awk … money to buy Polly a cracker … awk … Polly wanna cracker … awk … Polly will dance around a pole for money to buy a cracker … awk …
ooops … I thought I turned off the slanties
Awk! It’s a living.
But for real lots of animals trade gifts for sex. Of course, they’re generally trying to reproduce, and the “gifts” are often food.
Well, duh.
Why else would you learn to cook?
mikey
[…] & Mounts News » News News Comment on Shorter Greg Gutfeld by Sockpuppet #472008-08-12 02:10:36For”. American Jingoism is largely based on those pompous declared principles, […]
[…] & Mounts News » News News Comment on Shorter Greg Gutfeld by Sockpuppet #472008-08-13 00:16:50For”. American Jingoism is largely based on those pompous declared principles, […]
What an extravagant display of ignorance! Glory be!
First of all, the attraction to breasts is a culturally induced phenomenon, not genetically hard wired. In Western culture the breasts are kept constantly covered, which augments their mystique; in equatorial lands where the breasts of both genders are exposed, the breasts hold little or no sexual appeal.
Secondly, the breasts are only on the “front” of the body due to the evolutionary jerry-rigging which necessitated walking upright (and who the hell knows why THAT happened). In our evolutionary infancy, when humans got around on all fours like orangutans, etc., the breasts hung down like a cow’s udders. Modern brassieres have been drafted into the eventually undoable task of resisting the inevitability of gravity.