What a stupid post.

I believe once a sport becomes more about the fame/glamour/money than about playing the game, it’s time to reconsider how things are working. The basketball strike of years ago was about players not making enough money, as though their 6-digit salaries were unable to keep up with their cocaine and hooker habits. Meanwhile the US Congress deems $35k to be the median house income, able to sustain a family of 4 (years ago).

Considering the sheer amount of favoritism and obscene salaries those involved with sports receive, the game is no longer about the game. Long got a lot of perks as a coach, Locksley is getting biased treatment since he’s the head coach regardless of the amount of negative publicity he’s getting. Then there’s the steroid headlines in baseball, the dog fights in the NFL, and whatever other sensationalism we can get over these “professional athletes”. When it’s no longer about the game, we need to change direction. Maybe the ex-football players can come up with a new game involving rakes, hos, and shovels.

People are violent and need outlets. Football is a great outlet for this. It’s much better than war.

I am, however, all for turning administrator’s offices into indoor gardens and suggest we start with the offices of UNM’s excess of VP’s.

Re: the above, saw on last night’s news that the university is going to have a definitive statement today about the football situation. Are we going to have more overpaid pros come in and tells us what a great coach we’ve got for the money? As for stupid postings, how about the one that the violence of football is a great substitute for the violence of war. at least we’ve gotten around to the point of inadvertently admitting that violence is the name of the game in this country from that war glorifying doggerel we call the national anthem to our propensity for resolving most issues with anme calling and a gun we are indeed an amazing people. Oh yeah, who are the mezzanine seats being saved for in the new overpriced pit; political hacks and regent strokers? with the governor and the state legislators unable to find money to balance the budget without cutting education funds where do they always manage to find money for this kind of stupidity?

I’m amazed by the soothsayers: Ayn Rand, for instance, who warned us fifty years ago of the risk of dictatorship or civil war if collectivism persisted. Or economist Friedrich Hayek, who wrote in the 1940s that we’ll become serfs if we move toward big government.

However, what feels most prophetic lately is an obscure movie from the l970s called Little Murders. The writer, Pulitzer-Prize-winning cartoonist Jules Feiffer, predicted that the ’60s would unleash a feral, primitive society.

The movie has a checkered history. It started out as a play on Broadway in the mid-‘60s that was such a bomb, it closed after seven performances.

Audiences were shocked and horrified by the apocalyptic world presented. At the time, New York’s elite were celebrating the sexual revolution and the loosening of social mores. In contrast, Feiffer envisioned an eventual train wreck — a nihilistic world of little and big murders of the soul.

The failed play was relocated to England, where it became a big hit. It was produced for the big screen in 1971, starring some fledgling actors such as Elliot Gould, Donald Sutherland, and Alan Arkin.

A dark comedy, Little Murders depicts a society gone mad, replete with frequent homicides and crushing insults to the spirit.

The film’s moral compass is Patsy, a young woman who still bubbles over with optimism and love amidst the madness.

(Warning: I’m going to spoil the ending.)

By the end of the film, when Patsy is killed, her family finally cracks. They, like so many others, degenerate into a violent, ape-like state.

I’ve been thinking about the movie this week and the nightmare-world Feiffer forecast after learning of a horrendous crime near me in Richmond, CA.

There’s so much crime out here that most of the time, the residents are numb. We have waves of takeover restaurant robberies and you barely hear a peep.

And when a teacher was beaten and stoned a few months ago during her class at Portola Middle School in El Cerrito (minutes from Berkeley) a small article was buried in the local paper. Many in the leftist community defended the youths as victims of white privilege, and some even blamed the teacher.

But then, last weekend, there was a crime so evil that no one could brush it off.

At a homecoming dance at Richmond High School (in the same district as the middle school stoning), a fifteen-year-old girl was beaten and gang-raped for over two hours while a crowd from the dance watched, laughed, and photographed the scene. No one called the cops.

The girl was left unconscious, dumped under a bench. She had to be airlifted to a specialty hospital.

The so-called experts fault the usual suspects: absentee parents, indigence, drug-infested schools, and herd behavior. One teacher indicts the media’s sexual exploitation of women. A parent of one of the arrested youths blames racism.

But there was hardship, alcoholism, bad parents, sexism, and teenagers fifty years ago without such mayhem.

And many other countries have worse poverty, but lower crime rates. Crime is scant in India because for one, most Indians are Hindus or Sikhs and believe in reincarnation. Also, as an Indian friend told me, once you’re jailed in India, you make sure you never go back.

It’s easier to blame society than face the deep, dark truth: we’ve created a nation filled to the brim with sociopaths (also known as antisocial personalities).

I recently read a book called The Narcissism Epidemic. It reports the high number of narcissists among the young and contends that their condition is aided and abetted by self-esteem training.

True, but the theory feels a bit dated. The biggest danger now is a sociopathic epidemic.

While narcissists are selfish, annoying people, their humanity is still in place. They possess a conscience and can feel guilt and shame. Most people in power have some degree of narcissism.

Sociopaths are a different breed entirely. Here are some common features: callous disregard for others, superficial charm, pathological self-centeredness, lying and manipulation, irritability and aggression, lack of remorse or guilt, cruelty, ingratitude, and antisocial behavior.

O.J. Simpson and Bernie Madoff are obvious sociopaths. But the callous and the cruel may also have antisocial tendencies, such as Mike Malloy, a liberal Talk Radio host who said on air that he hopes Glenn Beck will commit suicide like Beck’s mom; or actress Sandra Bernhardt, who wished a gang rape on Sarah Palin.

What’s the difference between a sociopath and a narcissist? It goes to intent. John Edwards wanted to indulge his sensual pleasures, and he made his own needs front and center. That’s selfishness, narcissism. If he were purposely trying to destroy his wife, that’s sociopathy.

How far up the ladder in DC does sociopathy go? It’s anyone’s guess since the Teleprompter controls how much we know about Obama.

But have you noticed the surge in antisocial behavior since Obama came on the scene, like the wilding of Hillary and Sarah and the emboldening of thugs, from SEIU to the New Black Panthers?

We do know that Obama had a closer relationship with two sociopaths — Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn — than he let on. The demented duo never recanted their actions in the ’60s: bombing and maiming, telling white kids to go home and kill their parents, admiring Charles Manson. Ayers dedicated a book to Sirhan Sirhan, killer of Bobby Kennedy.

Then there’s Obama mentor Frank Marshall Davis, who proudly detailed his sexual conquest of a young girl in a fictionalized memoir called Sex Rebel: Black. While pedophiles have protected status under the new hate crimes legislation, they’re still sociopaths in my book.

I’m not saying that Obama has an antisocial personality. At this point, no one really knows.

However, there’s reason for concern. I don’t know about you, but none of my friends revered Charles Manson or bombed buildings. Given Obama’s choice of compatriots, let’s hope that birds of a feather don’t flock together.

How did this happen, the metastasizing of an antisocial tumor?

Feiffer’s Little Murders offered some clues over forty years ago, such as self-worshiping, moral relativism, and rejecting God and religion.

The movie also sounded an alarm about the resurgence of the Left. The film’s most prescient moment is when Patsy’s husband, played by Elliot Gould, recalls being a college radical who has a change of heart.

In a darkened room, he gravely says to Patsy, “You shouldn’t destroy institutions until you know what will take their place. You might find that you will miss them when they’re gone.” Seconds later, Patsy is shot.

The progressives have destroyed the structures uniting this country since its founding. Now, the rules of morality that kept people’s base impulses in check have gone AWOL. Cruelty is the new normal, while the sacred is mocked.

What has the Left unleashed? A quasi-autocracy where dissidents are silenced and the Constitution is trashed. A government that loves animals, the earth, and endangered birds, but not humans.

Everywhere we look, from the ghettos to the corporations to the pristine halls of the government, we can see people whose hearts and souls are empty.

Their antisocial behavior is enabled by a codependent society that gives aggrieved groups the green light to pillage and plunder.

The H1N1 virus will hopefully fade away soon. But sociopathy will not wane unless we create a nation of grown-ups. A country where people are expected to take responsibility for their actions. No exceptions.

As long as sociopaths have carte blanche, the U.S. will no longer be a beacon of hope to the world. We won’t regain our standing until our lawmakers start following the law and our teachers can teach without being pummeled…

…and a fifteen-year-old girl can attend her big homecoming dance and not have her life destroyed in the process.

How many more Maoists and Van Jones-style radicals are in the Obama administration? Some White House aides are concerned about the radicals in the House, and wonder if it’s not too late to show them the side door at midnight.

According to the American Spectator, recently-resigned senior advisor Susan Crawford “ran afoul” of senior economics advisor Larry Summers over the Net Neutrality rules that Crawford strongly supported. Apparently Summers only learned how radical the rules were when he started fielding questions from his contacts in the business community. It appears that Crawford’s radical ideas on government control of the internet, combined with her “blind-siding” Summers, were enough to have her shown the door, although the official White House stance is that she had to return to her tenured academic position. The Robert Gibbs public persona on the Obama White House may also conceal further rumblings over radicals:

Crawford’s exit comes at a time when some Obama Administration aides, after seeing the fallout from the resignation of Van Jones and the spotlight placed on leftists inside the administration, like Anita Dunn, wonder if it is too late to pull back many of the more radical aides now placed in a number of different cabinet level departments, including the Department of Justice, and the Energy and Education departments, and federal agencies. “They haven’t done us any good on any level,” says the White House aide. “And now they are just a bunch of targets on our back that we can’t shake.”

How long a strong-willed individual like Summers could go on without conflict with the radicals in the roost has been a bit of a mystery until now. It would appear that the ongoing tensions between the moderates and the radicals over Obama policy-making have potential to result in a few more ejections from one side or the other.
The radicals on the inside should be no surprise given some of the visitors from the outside, as reported last week: George Soros (4 visits), S.E.I.U. President and A.C.O.R.N. associate Andy Stern (22 visits), N.O.W. President Kim Gandy (15 visits), John Podesta, President of the Soros-funded Center for American Progress (17 visits), Jesse Jackson (6 visits), Al Sharpton (2 visits) and climate radical Al Gore (4 visits).

With the likes of John Holdren, Cass Sunstein and Carol Browner at the top of the radical food chain in the White House, not to mention the Radical-In-Chief, one can only speculate at what kind of strange creatures are hiding from the daylight in the recesses of the Obama administration.

Oh to be a fly on the wall as the tension builds in a White House increasingly out-of-step with the rest of the country.

Shmidley, Krebs, and HR Helen will be hosting a “If we did cover it up, here’s how we would have done it” press conference at 11 in the Lobo Room at the SUB. All parties interested in lambasting the bastards who are making a mockery of established rules for civilized behavior and administrative transparency should attend.

Joseph Smith should stop ******* spamming the Daily Lobo with his bull**** cut and paste from the American Spectator. Not sure what Obama has to do with the lame ass football team!

Um, I think that was probably the point.

“somewhere in kenya a village is missing its idiot”

saw this on a bumer sticker the other day, thought I would share it with you all.

Forget El Nino, I blame Karl Marx
posted by Joe @ 08:43

Residents of the Venezuelan capital face cuts in water service for as much as 48 hours per week, after the government imposed rationing to stem a 25 percent shortfall in the city’s supply, officials said Monday.

However this is Chavez-land, where like all Socialist political environments, dystopia is a political instrument and misery is useful make a better world to keep an elite in power. For an example of how this kind of stupidity infects the human mind, see Ba’thist Iraq and Barack Obama’s social weltanschauung.
“What will the rich fill their swimming pools with?” the country’s leftist leader asked recently.

“With the water that is denied inhabitants in the poor neighborhoods,” he said, blaming the lack of sufficient water on “capitalism — a lack of feeling, a lack of humanity.”

Which is entirely to say that when markets are superseded by “rights” to others’ property, and the worth of a commodity is politicized (as health care will be in America if the left’s wet dream takes place), you end up with rationing and shortages that must be enforced, otherwise the price goes up, and you use less of it.

Which reminds me of the tomfoolery of banning carbon filament lightbulbs because they are too expensive to run. Too expensive for whom, exactly? The person willing to pay a higher electric bill to have something they’re willing to pay for?

Like Chavez’ “Kill my mob! Kill!” routine, it’s based on a notion that can only appeal to people who aren’t paying their own bills to begin with: school-age children and the dupable well off who don’t care if their poor neighbors pay more for something if it makes their well trained-in guilt go away.

How about we instead eat this kind of rich peeplez, people?
Al Gore’s is positioned to become a green billionaire thanks to his investment in several ‘green energy’ companies which reportedly will soon be awarded healthy contracts by the US government. If it were anything other than ‘green’ energy — say oil, there would be widespread outrage.
If you’re looking for some figure to hate who profits from increasing the burden and misery on others, he certainly fits the bill.
Al Gore defends all this as putting his money where his mouth is and investing in what he believes. That would almost make sense, were it not for the fact that money is made in this “industry” only because the government is sending dump-trucks full of money to these companies.

And much as Mao was just another Emperor in his own eyes, and Chavez can believe that the love of a people can be bought, the demonization that’s employed as a tool enriches through the corruption of the instruments employed.
Funny how Democrat politicians know how to make money better than greedy capitalists, isn’t it? You might think our government is many trillion dollars in debt. But Gore and Obama actually saved or created trillions of dollars over the years with their investments of your money. Just ask Joe Biden.
Odd, really given that the only way this story got a rise out of anyone from the the NYT, was Gore’s detestable act of not hiding his wealth. It makes for an interesting sight when you find motivated young people volunteering their time, or working at fellowships and make-work schemes for free to create the social headlock that makes Gore richer and Chavez more domestically omnipotent.

Chumps.