20. If Leonard Cohen sang songs to slash your wrists by, Tom Waits sang songs to cry into your beer over, then keel over and die:
Chuckles has an interesting approach – always send he same thing twice, so without any further a[ga]do[o doo doo]:
19. Well, everyone knows about it but let’s summarise – Laura K tweets:
1. Govt is sending three documents to the EU tonight – the 1st, the Benn Act extension letter, exactly as set out in law, but that PM has not personally signed; 2nd, a cover note from Sir Tim Barrow and the 3rd, a letter signed by the PM arguing that further delay is a mistake.
18. While ferreting around about whether Tulsi Gabbard is illegal or not – born in Western Samoa – along came reader Judd with this:
It can, in fact, be traced to the socio-political assumptions of the post-Thatcherite 1990s, when a new, more compassionate form of liberal-left politics took hold. The basic set-up was thus: the working classes were cast in the role of childlike victims, providing feel-good fodder for members of the educated middle class, whose social concern and support for state remedies established their moral superiority, and provided them with plentiful jobs dedicated to the care and tutelage of the helpless masses – jobs that ordained them as society’s rightful leaders, while being sufficiently free of accountability to satisfy their sense of entitlement.
17. Some music with a common theme but I’m not going to tell you what it is, so there:
16. Another of these ‘so what?’ items – Telegraph making a big deal of Jane Seymour, one of those eternal horse’s backsides. Dame Edna got it right in a show where JS was a guest: “Now Jane, you’ve been successfully married three times. Tell us … what’s your secret?”
Just checked and the tally’s now married and divorced four times – certainly racking them up.
‘So what?’ you cry out and you’ve every right, ditto concerning Gwynneth Poultry. The thing with both is their schtick in telling anyone who’ll listen just how wonderful they are as women but that’s not all of it.
Some people like Sparkle just do bad things – wilfully spread bad things around whilst being ultra-bitchy at the same time. See what she’s reduced Silly Harry to. She’s bad news. She now has the temerity to say no one ever asks how she’s feeling.
Why would we? She’s not just a nothing, she’s actually destructive, as are Pelosi, Swinson, McCain, Schiff, Romney, Corbyn and so on.
To be fair, Seymour and Poultry are more subtle. No,they don’t go out and make people’s lives a misery [except for the four husbands]. No, we can’t really claim that.
It’s oh so subtle. This blog explains it better:
A few weeks ago, Jane Seymour’s mother died. An awful tragedy without a doubt. Since she’s a contestant on Dancing with the Stars this season, they did a little bit on the show about how tough it was for her to practice that week because she was upset and had to go to the funeral, etc.
Understandable. Nobody would expect otherwise.
Just before she went out and danced, however, she gave a little speech about how this was her mother’s favorite show and how her mother would call her every day and tell her that it’s so important to her that she does her best to win and make her proud.
This is a show, by the way, where people who seemingly have nothing else to do afterwards are allowed to vote for the person they think was best that day.
Was Jane pandering? Or was she just stating the facts for the tear-loving producers?
You don’t care. Why would you? Why should you? It’s a stupid TV show that comes on at the same time as Heroes. Let her play the game. If she wants to win the Dancing with the Stars tag team championship belts by pandering, go ahead. It’s a retarded TV show.
Later, I started to notice that Jane does something like this every week. Some tiny story that tugs at the heartstrings of the viewers. One week, she was too sick to be on the results show. Woe is her.
This week, she was dancing to a Johnny Cash song (chosen by the producers) and gave a little story about how she was best friends with Johnny and June Carter and she even wore jewellery they gave her while she was performing.
Go for the emotional jugular, Jane. America loves it.
At this point, it’s worth noting that Jane always gets lots of votes, while people who are better dancers than she is get voted off the show every week.
IMHO, the difference between the Cult of Sparkle and the Cult of Sweet Jane is that the former is quite destructive [but never self-destructive]. Sweet Jane just wants everyone to love her and think she’s the ant’s pants, the bee’s knees.
Is that bad, that form of narcissism? Well not exactly, no, not in itself. Every one of us has foibles, conceits, a nasty side deep down – I post mine on the blog. But you’re contributing something socio-politically and I’d say in real life too. Even if it’s minor, you’re still giving back. I do up to a point.
People like Seymour don’t. What is noteworthy is that all she’s doing is bringing the worst aspects of the female to the fore, just as Blair, Brown, Stalin, brought the worst aspects of the man, whilst the best aspects seem to have been suppressed and/or lie dormant.
What we have is a skewed model of womanhood there, just as we see skewed men as well. Why concentrate on the women? Because it’s now a woman’s world and it is the skewed who are getting appointed, not the good.
Thus we get this type of thing:
Viewpoint: The magical world of ‘The Female-Led Future’
Founder of The Pink Protest and author Scarlett Curtis shares her vision for 2030, and asks whether feminism is anywhere near “done”.
Scarlett is one of this year’s BBC 100 women, an inspiring and innovative group who are driving change for women around the world.
Sigh. Just … sigh.
15. There it is:
England beat Australia 40-16 to make Rugby World Cup semi-finals.
Australia managed by an Australian beaten by Englishmen managed by an Australian. World Cup – all these sides fighting each other for the right to be defeated by NZ in the final. 🙂
14. Would be immensely useful for me if it turns out to be so:
Scientists create device that cuts desalination costs by 90%
13. Well of course they do, that’s their whole schtick:
Real collusion: Tort Lawyers, Bloomberg, state attorney generals, and climate activists
Climate Litigation Watch posted this video today, which is well worth watching. Climate activists can’t win on the science, so they collude to do back door deals to create climate based laws.
12. Click on pics to embiggen, keep clicking until embiggened. I most humbly suggest to the learned gentleman that it very much DOES NOT give the option of ‘later’ walking away – since when has the EU EVER allowed anyone to ‘walk away’?
This shows the same very British ‘let’s have fair play here, chaps’ mentality which the other side most certainly does NOT subscribe to, no way.
It is the second worst deal in our modern history, counting Chamberlain’s as third, on the grounds that that one did not actually get off the ground.
Other than that, he makes some good points:
The EU’s whole stance is to tie things up for their own monetary aggrandisement and political control, whilst leaving things vague and open-ended when forced to under the spotlight … but even the thickest political watcher has a whole history of that mob to look to for precedent as to their tactics.
“Give Boris credit. This is not the worst deal in history. It’s the second worst deal in history”.
— The Brexit Party (@brexitparty_uk) October 17, 2019
As Martin Daubney says here:
* absolutely no guarantee British fishing waters will be British
* on level playing field we must agree to preventing “unfair competitive advantages”. This seriously hampers future trade deals
For goodness sake, wake up, Britain and make your feelings known on this.
11. Oh yes, we remember all right:
— san mac (@SMcalis) October 18, 2019
[H/T Chuckles and haiku where appropriate]