Monday, October 29, 2018

公車站招親




我沒料到會在這個地方碰上這種事。有個矮胖矮胖的婦 女在公車站向我走來;她穿著破舊的 T 恤衫和運動褲,問我 想不想要她的女兒。她說起中文時有很強烈的抑揚頓挫,我 一開始還懷疑自己是不是聽錯了。婦女放下裝滿家庭清潔用 品的塑膠袋,伸出手要跟我握手。

「交個朋友好嗎?」她坦率地問,然後再度提出要不要帶走她女兒的問題。我沒向她伸出手。

「至少瞧個一眼嘛。」女人說,並示意我看看約莫五步 之外的女孩。

女孩看上去大概二十歲,顯然有智能方面的障礙。她靦腆地對我微微笑。她的身形比母親臃腫,模樣就如顆過大的肉包被強行灌進毫不搭調的家居服。

女孩的母親硬是跟我握了手,接著便解釋自己已經不曉得該怎麼辦了,說女兒都不聽她的話,老愛嫌她太嘮叨。

「你想把她帶走就帶走,想讓她幹嘛就幹嘛,我要的不多。」她邊說邊露出口中僅剩的四顆牙。

她也發現我邊聽邊注意她牙齒間的空隙,於是指著女兒告訴我:「哦,她牙齒沒我這麼爛啦,你放心。」

女孩一聽到這話就皺皺眉頭,還對我們吐了吐舌頭,不過沒一會兒就笑開了,好讓我們能順利看到她的牙齒。

而她的牙齒確實沒那麼糟:她還有牙齒。

「我上個月滿五十歲。我這輩子生了七個孩子,死了兩個兒子、一個女兒,現在只剩這孩子跟其他兩個了。」

由於她敘述的是件叫人悲傷的憾事,我就不便提出她數學方面的小小錯誤了。畢竟長期的心理創傷可能導致計算上的差錯。但滿不在乎也會造成同樣的結果。

我見公車即將進站,便說:「不好意思,我趕著去上 班。」

「拜託,你不能考慮一下嗎?」這位母親說道。「我只求你把她帶走就好。我要的不多。」

她伸手撫過我拎在手上的 Subway 潛艇堡牛皮紙袋,彷 彿在說:「把裡頭的火雞肉潛艇堡交出來,這女孩就歸你。」

公車車門打開之際,這母親便攬住她弱智女兒的肩膀, 打算奮力把她推上公車跟我一起走。無奈女孩比她強壯得多,所以這招並未奏效。

公車漸漸開走,我看著窗外的她們離我越來越遠,看著那母親咒罵那女兒,看著那女兒向我擺手揮別,看著那張弱智的臉上咧開了嘴,對我露出告捷的微笑。

枚德林

《白痴有限公司》: 有犀牛、蝙蝠、obasans 、海豚、真英雄、台北秘史 and more. 你可以在台灣買到:

at Books.com

at 誠品

at 金石堂

Like 我的FB粉絲頁: Eric Mader 枚德林

Tuesday, October 16, 2018

Elizabeth Warren: Who the Hell do you think you are?



Can’t you just smell the Dem sense of #Entitlement?

Prominent Dem senator Elizabeth Warren benefited for years from special treatment because she claimed to be Native American. Now that it’s clear she’s no more Native American than most American whites, what does she do? She keeps defending herself, arguing about it, tweeting up a storm.

It would never enter Warren’s head just to apologize, to say: “I actually didn’t deserve those benefits, and I’m very sorry about what happened. Here’s what I intend to do to make it up.”

No, Warren doesn’t think that way. Warren has the typical Dem entitlement bug. Because she’s “on the left”, because she’s “a woman”, because “the patriarchy blah blah blah"--the concrete facts of Warren's behavior don’t matter. She’s been living a long-drawn-out falsehood, taking special assistance at key moments in her career, getting special kudos for years, but so what? It’s small stuff. All that matters for Warren is defeating her political enemies--who are, apparently, so so very bad that lying and grandstanding and making false identity claims are irrelevant.

We saw the same Dem entitlement at work in the clown show inflicted on Brett Kavanaugh and his family. For the Democratic Party, which clearly manipulated the timing of the release of Christine Ford’s accusations, it didn’t matter a whit that none of those accusations could be proven, that not a single one of the witnesses supported Ford’s claims. All that mattered was the entitlement--here an entitlement to claim and demand whatever they wanted without regard for process or establishing any kind of truth.

Now I don’t know what actually happened decades ago when Ford was in high school. Nobody but Ford knows. I strongly suspect nothing happened, and that Ford knows very well Brett Kavanaugh never did what she said. I suspect Ford was simply embellishing (if not outright inventing) a story and linking it to Kavanaugh. I suspect Ford was lying, and that she was doing so because, as a woman “on the left”, Kavanaugh simply had to be defeated. She convinced herself she was going to play a heroic role, that she could just ramp up her acting a bit and manage to win one for the Team. Not to mention the fame and the book deal and maybe even a movie starring Meryl Streep as the adult Ford.

But what I believe about Christine Ford doesn’t matter. What’s important is that Ford’s case was indemonstrable according to any sane legal norms, and that this fact didn’t in the least matter to the Dems, who just kept repeating their #BelieveWomen mantra. Because when a conservative has to be taken down, it’s neither here nor there if you tell anything resembling truth. It’s irrelevant whether you can give any evidence for what you’re claiming. You just say it aloud, and America just has to go along--because you’re somehow part of the “victim” class and thus following due procedure just isn't necessary.

And for those who demand actual evidence? They will be shouted down by the Dem mobs outside as "rape apologists" or "fascists".

I could go on with more cases of fronts on which it is considered almost criminal even to question claims being made. How about the insane insistence that all Americans virtually bow down to people who redefine their gender in any of 57 ways, that Americans use the language these “victims” demand, and that we change laws to suit them, throwing out any sense of basic biology along the way? And we’re supposed to do all this because these gender-confused people are supposedly “victims” of the rest of us.

I could go on and on. But the point is the stench of #AbsoluteDemEntitlement in Elizabeth Warren’s case. Rachel Dolezal is more black than Warren is Native American. Even the Cherokee Nation is fed up with Warren’s antics.

And yet she won’t think to apologize. No. Because she’s “on the left”, she’s “fighting for justice”, the other side just “must be defeated”.

Sorry, Senator, but that’s not how justice works. Lies and outlandish claims are never the basis of justice. And if America lets this defective new left-wing Dem definition of justice take root, then we will see real victimization. Because our legal system will be kaputt.

Eric Mader

Have some deadpan with your coffee. Check out Idiocy, Ltd. Dryest humor in the west.

Wednesday, October 10, 2018

蝙蝠 : 《白痴有限公司》



蝙蝠不就是一種會在月下忽然癲狂的肉蛾,一種隨時可能解體的小型鋪毛裝置?不然咧?

沒錯,蝙蝠是種中了邪,老隨著閃光燈舞動的橡膠玩具; 蝙蝠是赫卡忒* 收藏的手偶。

眾所周知,蝙蝠的性子拗得很,永遠走不出八○年代。

牠們的耳朵在生理上就是聽不到諸如布蘭妮、卡卡、肯伊等 名字。「你說哪位?」

牠們會從經年了無生機的樹木那中空樹幹裡一湧而出,一如自地獄手機發送出去的簡訊。

iPhone 10 能破解這些簡訊裡的軟語嘶情嗎?那 iPhone 15 呢?

「非常期待見到尼。相信粉快就能見面ㄌ。;)艾莉森」

不,無論是令堂、您患有焦慮症的姑媽,還是閣下年幼的妹妹凱莉在午餐便當裡發現了囊鼠的首級— 要比尖叫,誰也沒有最弱小的蝙蝠叫得尖厲。

Was denkst du, Fledermausmann? Müssen wir noch Heidegger lesen? **

(回想少年時,我做過這種夢;倘若我現在夠果敢,就能實現這些夢:有座單間的博物館,館內只陳列蝙蝠形形色色的上下顎骨和牙齒— 每副蝙蝠的上下顎骨和牙齒都經人清洗過並且安置在牆上,下方還附了對應的蝙蝠照和專屬的十四行詩。)

蝙蝠是躁狂發作的鼴鼠,鼴鼠是抑鬱消沉的蝙蝠。蝙蝠睡覺時倒吊。蝙蝠邊睡覺邊倒吊。蝙蝠倒吊著睡 覺。

第三句比較好。

而今,凱.蒂森胡森,你又在哪裡?

--枚德林

Notes:

*為希臘神話中總與巫術、鬼魂、魔法聯繫在一起,象徵幽冥 的月陰女神 Hecate。 


**此句德文意為:「如何,蝙蝠俠?這下我們還要讀海德格嗎?」 馬丁.海德格(Martin Heidegger, 1889–1976)為德國哲學家。 


-------

《白痴有限公司》: 還有犀牛、熊、obasans 、長頸鹿 、真英雄、台北秘史 and more. 你可以在台灣買到:

at Books.com

at 誠品

at 金石堂

Like my Facebook author page: Eric Mader 枚德林

Thursday, September 27, 2018

My Little Spat with Caitlin Johnstone on "Rape Culture"


Yes, in fact Caitlin Johnstone is a leftist journalist I admire greatly. Her well-documented and witheringly logical reporting on the Dem/MSM Russiagate scam has been brilliant and essential. As is a lot of her writing on US foreign policy. Johnstone is a leftist who does not jump on just any left bandwagon to trash the Trump Administration, and because of this she's hated and mistrusted by much of our bandwagon left. She's even been called "alt-right", which is pretty hilarious given that she's a socialist, but par for the course in this climate.

But recently, and just now with the Kavanaugh Confirmation Clown Show going on, she put up a piece that referenced "rape culture"--the sophomoric and easily debunked feminist concept that claims women in America and other developed Western countries are living in cultures that tolerate rape.

Given that there are and have been actual rape cultures in history, that rape is a serious crime, and that, further, there are many men now in American jails who are there just because of bogus stories concocted by ethically challenged women--given all this, and the unprecedented Kavanaugh circus, I called her out. Below is her original post graphic and parts of the ensuing spat. I don't disagree with some of the points made in Johnstone's's original post, but do very strongly disagree with her irresponsible use of "rape culture".

On this topic, it is Michelle Malkin who talks sense, not Caitlin Johnstone.

E.M.























Oh, and by the way, GOP--CONFIRM BRETT KAVANAUGH THIS WEEK, YOU WIMPS.

Check out my Idiocy, Ltd. and begin the long, hard reckoning.

Monday, September 24, 2018

There's No Going Back from this #MeToo Clown Show


Diane Feinstein, who knows how to hold onto a letter.

So surprise. With Christine Blasey Ford’s accusation falling apart, another liberal woman has stepped forward to accuse Brett Kavanaugh of misdeeds in the distant past. Her name is Deborah Ramirez. Unfortunately, even the ultra-liberal New Yorker, has to recognize her new #MeToo story isn’t very compelling. Which didn’t stop them from printing of course. Read:

She was at first hesitant to speak publicly, partly because her memories contained gaps because she had been drinking at the time of the alleged incident. In her initial conversations with The New Yorker, she was reluctant to characterize Kavanaugh’s role in the alleged incident with certainty. After six days of carefully assessing her memories and consulting with her attorney, Ramirez said that she felt confident enough of her recollections to say that she remembers Kavanaugh had exposed himself at a drunken dormitory party, thrust his penis in her face, and caused her to touch it without her consent as she pushed him away. Ramirez is now calling for the F.B.I. to investigate Kavanaugh’s role in the incident. “I would think an F.B.I. investigation would be warranted,” she said.

Hey, me too, with legal standards like this, I’ve got things from my past, times I’ve been groped and abused and stolen from, that the FBI should investigate. I should call The New Yorker. Or my local Democratic member of Congress. Oh, wait. I’m white. And male.

Rod Dreher sums it up at his blog:

So the FBI is supposed to investigate whether or not a drunk college boy pulled down his pants at a drunken college party and exposed himself to a college girl who was so drunk that she can’t clearly remember the event, and had to take six days to think about whether or not it actually happened? It was so devastatingly traumatic to her that she had to ponder for a week about whether or not it happened, and whether or not it was Brett Kavanaugh?

This is what they’re throwing at Brett Kavanaugh now?

Let's be very clear. Both Ford and this new "accuser", as well as Diane Feinstein and her unhinged party, are doing irreparable harm to all the women who are actual victims of sexual assault. That's the real harm now sinking its claws into America's psyche. And given how this has all played out, there's likely no going back. Thanks to our identity politics left, the bar for accusation has gotten so insanely low that literally millions of Americans have been pushed, whether they like it or not, toward an attitude of deep skepticism regarding claims of sexual abuse.

For myself even, who tries hard to keep my judgment from being clouded by political considerations, I have to admit that going forward part of me, hearing an accusation made against a man, will pose the question, "Is this woman of the left-liberal persuasion?" and if the answer is yes, I will be dismissive of the accusation unless she has very concrete evidence. It's wrong finally, that it's come to this, but this team has brought it upon themselves. Too many of them, even the most prominent, are on the verge of explicitly acknowledging that if an accusation serves their political goals it must be treated as true. All sense of due legal process is lost.

Consider this tweet last year from a female columnist at a national woman’s magazine.


Say what? But it's clear what "slips" like this reveal. Namely, this attitude is already deeply entrenched in many American women's thinking. And in the verbal repertoire of many beta men who are in it for the hugs it gets them. If this attitude weren't so entrenched, after all, the absurdly belated and memory-impaired Ford accusation against Judge Kavanaugh wouldn't have been given the attention it has. How can there be any justice in a society that allows a clown show like this to put on the garb of justice? There cannot. Shame on these left-liberal women. Because the people they're harming most are women who have really been victimized.

All I can say is: VOTE IN THE COMING NOVEMBER MIDTERMS! Get your friends to vote. These unprincipled lefties need to be kept as far away from the reins of government as possible.

Check out my Idiocy, Ltd. and begin the long, hard reckoning.

Tuesday, September 11, 2018

Bats




What is a bat if it is not a meat moth having a fit under the moon; if it is not a small furred contraption on the verge of going unhinged?

Indeed a bat is a haunted rubber toy dancing to a strobe light; it is Hecate’s own hand-puppet.

Bats are defiantly stuck in the 80s, as you know. Their ears are physiologically incapable of registering names like Britney, Gaga, Kanye. “Who?”

They burst from the hollowed trunks of long-dead trees like text messages sent from the cell phones of Hell.

Will the iPhone 15 be able to decipher these floppy hissing missives? The iPhone 20?

“Look forward 2 seeing u. Sooner than u think. ;) Alison”

No, your Mother can never, neither can your anxiety-disordered Aunt, nor your little sister Carrie when she found the severed gopher’s head in her lunch box--none can shriek more piercingly than the smallest bat.

Was denkst du, Fledermausmann? Müssen wir noch Heidegger lesen?

(As a teen I dreamed such dreams, and if only I had such courage now, I would fulfill these dreams: A one-room museum displaying only the cleaned and mounted jaws of the various bat species, under each jaw a photo of the bat and a sonnet in its honor.)

A bat is a mole in a manic episode. A mole is a depressed bat.

Bats hang while they sleep upside down. Bats sleep while they hang upside down. Bats hang upside down while they sleep.

Sentence 3 is the best.

And you, Kay Thiesenhusen, where are you now?

This and 42 other important public service announcements can be found in my book Idiocy, Ltd.

Whether Dorky Dem or Sellout GOP, the Trump Opposition Dare Not Speak What It Really Opposes




A friend of mine was criticizing the New York Times for publishing the recent Anonymous Op-Ed purportedly written by a covert resister inside the Trump administration. The Op-Ed, if you haven’t read it, shows the writer gushing in self-congratulation about undermining the president’s agenda. Yes, the same president he or she works for.

My friend made his criticisms in an online thread and asked for comment. His basic position was that the Times “couldn’t be in the anonymous author business and remain credible.” And that whoever in the Trump administration wrote the piece, if indeed it’s authentic, isn’t doing American democracy any favors.

The discussion touched on Trump’s narcissism and then on how our different branches of government are supposed to function.

I post parts of the thread here.

E.M.

MYSELF: I agree with your basic assessment of why the NYT Op-Ed was out of line. As for the other issues, I suspect we’re in agreement too.

It's the legislative branch and judicial branches that are in charge of countering the executive when and if the executive is out of line. To praise anonymous "Resistance" operatives who brag in print about working inside the executive branch itself is to praise borderline traitors to our democracy. The voters elected Trump to fulfill his policy agenda, and neocons who think they know better and expatiate on how they're subverting what the voters want--well, you do the math.

As a Trump supporter, sure, I see the narcissism. But narcissism is often a personality trait of people who end up in leadership positions. Obama was and is a monumental narcissist. Obviously. But that said, how would the country be reacting if an Obama administration employee wrote something like that NYT editorial? Most of the media would be apoplectic, and the word "treason" would be popping up everywhere, especially on the NYT's Op-Ed page.

The thesis that Trump is somehow "more dangerous" than Obama is undemonstrable. Trump hasn't yet dragged us into a regime-change war, he hasn't decided to dictate trans bathroom policy to the whole country's public education system, he hasn't sat on his hands to allow North Korea nuclear and missile policy to shift into overdrive, or let China continue building military bases in the South China Sea.

Some narcissistic leaders are dangerous by being pussies too in love with the sound of their own "reasonable" and diplomatic speech. Neville Chamberlain. That gay Obama narcissism. Others narcissistic leaders sound dangerous, but aren't as dangerous in the long run.

FRIEND: Eric, this time, it appears the middle is in agreement with your perspective in terms of the actual people and their jobs. Regarding any president, there is the office and there is the man. They are not the same. Trump the man is a personal embarrassment to me. The Office of President is a great responsibility. If Trump’s hires are back-stabbing him, they should stop that, come clean, and front stab him. And get fired. If Trump orders crazy on rice, each person in the process who refuses to bring crazy on rice should be fired until someone either does the crazy or he wakes up. What Trump supporters need to wake up to is that none of these internal resistance people are Democrats or liberals. They are Trump appointees. They are Republicans. And that has to be galling.

MYSELF: The problem we Trump supporters see is that this back-stabbing to some degree is inevitable, given that Trump is going to staff his administration with Republicans, but at the same time most Washington Republicans are not on the same page as him. They're neocons in foreign policy and free-traders in economic policy. Whereas his voters support him, much of the Washington GOP sees the Trump presidency as a crisis for their party--not because he's "crazy" so as much as because he's not following the Agenda. If he were following the Agenda, they could live with the "crazy".

Similar with the Democrats. The line that Trump is "dangerous", a "threat to world peace", a "racist" is fed largely by a combination of two things: 1) Trump is not following the Agenda (that same Agenda the establishment GOP wants); 2) the Dems are the party of people with Daddy issues, and Trump sounds and looks like all the Daddies rolled into one.

On both sides, most of the people screaming opposition to Trump are not screaming about what they really oppose in him, but rather reaching for something else to scream about that sounds more marketable. The GOP establishment can't come out screaming "This guy is not following the Agenda, America!" because the public will respond "Yeah, that's why we voted for him." And the Dems can't come out screaming "This guy's a DADDY who just laughs at what I say about racism and he even told me to take of my pussyhat at the dinner table!" They can't come out screaming that because the non-Daddy-issues public will laugh at them and say "Take off your pussyhat, dork."

All in all, then, neither Dem nor GOP opposition to Trump dares speak honestly about why they are so opposed.

Check out my Idiocy, Ltd. and begin the long, hard reckoning.