Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for June, 2008

Take a principled stand. You can always change your mind later.

What makes a d-bag special, different from other kinds of mortals, is their deep insight into Truth. It is because they say it’s so, and not because it corresponds to to any coherent set of facts. Sometimes this attitude is described as post-skeptical, or post-ironic. Sometimes it’s just post-rational.

David Brooks of the New York Times editorial page has changed his mind recently. He said in an op-ed piece today that the future of conservatism lies not in the country club, but in Sam’s club; or in non-d-bag terms, after winning the battle of ideas, lowering taxes and drastically widening the gulf of wealth between the conservative masters and their conservative lackeys, the lackeys are in revolt. The solution is to “rebrand” Republicans specifically and conservatism generally as friendly to the lackey. What one man calls updating the cause, another man might call finding a new way to pander to useful idiots.

Martin Crutsinger, a columnist for the Associate Press (a.k.a. the d-bag daily) has published a news item today with the triumphant headline “Economic stimulus payments send after-tax incomes soaring by largest amount in 33 years.” Because the AP isn’t ready to acquire the same reputation as Fox News, Curtsinger is compelled to add in the body of the piece the belief of economists that “the boost from the stimulus checks will be only temporary and once the checks are spent, the risks of the economy falling into a deep recession will increase.” But who reads an entire article these days? The headline is what shows up in news feeds on Yahoo and AOL, and that’s all a d-bag needs to know.

Here’s Chunque’s prediction. The economy will continue to “improve” (as will the “situation” in Iraq) until January, 2009. If Obama becomes president both the economy and Iraq will spontaneously and completely fall to pieces; however, if McCain takes over the reigns of government conditions will continue to improve until every Sam’s Club shopper can afford a McMansion on a ten acre plot with two hummers in the driveway.

Read Full Post »

Justice Scalia is most well known for his “strict constructionist” approach to judicial interpretation of the constitution, and his well-connected hunting buddies. Both make him a paragon of d-baggery, but the decision handed down today in District of Columbia v. Heller proves Scalia is one of our leading d-bags.

Though law is generally a subject that bores the majority of d-bags, your loving Chunque will attempt to navigate the complexities of the decision to point out where and how Scalia defended d-baggery in our name. In reference to the text of the second amendment of the constitution that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed,” Scalia wrote, “all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

Scalia’s self-professed strict constructionist method is meant at root to cripple judicial activism that offended d-bags in the 50s with decisions like Brown v. Board of Education that overruled the idea that racial segregation in the US is law. If the founders didn’t write it in the constitution it takes an act of Congress or a constitutional amendment to update the document for our times. The Constitution of the United States of America is not a living document. So for Scalia to write that the word “arms” in the second amendment might include howitzers or laser beams (or semi-automatic handguns) are not protected by the constitution — until he changes his mind, at which time it is not only good policy, but sound jurisprudence, for the Justice to ventriloquize the founders.

For making up rules to which others must adhere while reserving the right to break them yourself, we salute Antonin Scalia as our d-bag of the day!

Read Full Post »

Don’t forget to check out more of your favorite douchebag’s antics at American Douchebag!

Like the dark lord of d-baggery, Rush Limbaugh has made a career of teaching Americans how to be complete and utter d-bags. To non-d-bags, Limbaugh is offensive in every possible way: he is a pompous college drop-out whose failure and inability to fit into any respectable profession left him fit only for talk radio, but his success in appealing the the basest hatreds and fears of his audience has enriched him while impoverishing the national spirit. He is liar and a scumbag in addition to being a d-bag, whose absolute misrepresentation of the truth is a badge of honor for him and his listeners.

Limbaugh’s crusade against intelligence and rational thought is legendary to American d-bags, who have given up every pretense of their God given gift of free thought by calling themselves “ditto-heads”. His pioneering anti-intellectualism is the cornerstone of contemporary d-bag philosophy. If you can’t learn it before you drop out of college it must be destroyed by the storm troopers of mediocrity!

Limbaugh’s mocking of the weak and vulnerable, those who have made bad life choices and those who ended up on the wrong side of the law is made more poignant in the hearts of American d-bags because Limbaugh is himself overweight, slovenly in body and mind, a drug addict, and displays an unmistakable, criminal mentality. He is proof that power comes not from virtue but from crass, material force.

Limbaugh has taught us that he, like we, deserve it, not out of merit, but just because we say so. If the proof is in the pudding, he shakes his bowl full of jelly and defies The Good to prove it differently. 

For redefining what it means to be a snivelling, craven, hypocrite d-bag we salute Rush Limbaugh, the face of American d-baggery!

Read Full Post »

Ask any d-bag — they’ll tell you that America is great because we have free markets and free markets make you free.

This is not the kind of simple categorical mistake the uneducated make when they assume that because a word reoccurs in two different contexts that it has the same meaning both times (e.g. that hamburgers are made from ham). Many of the most well educated d-bags are convinced that there is a direct correlation between free markets and freedom. In fact, two of the most well renowned economists in d-bag circles are Nobel laureates Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman both of whom argued that the only way to preserve political freedom is to guarantee free markets.

In the “reality-based” world, whose logic is different from d-bag logic, people are greedy and selfish, but occasionally touched by noble impulses to serve their community even if no benefit redounds back onto themselves. In this world there are many ways people express themselves in society. That includes their economic choices, but it is not limited to economics. They also participate in politics and occasionally in the arts. In the reality based world, freedom is more than the ability to choose between hoagies, grinders and subs; rather it is the ability to reflect on who you are and cultivate who you want to be.

In the d-bag world, nothing is done because it contributes to something greater than yourself; everything is done because it reflects and expands your personal power. For d-bags this is a zero-sum game. In addition to the free market mantra, derived and perverted from Adam Smith’s idea of enlightened self-interest that greed is good, d-bags add the maxim that envy is also good. That means if someone is doing better than you, and you can’t join them, beat them. (This is the root of many d-bag rants against “liberal elites.”) How does this effect “free” markets? In the first place it makes them impossible in the practical, “real world”. D-bags’ envy makes them secretly hate competition, especially by a smaller, weaker competitor. Their envy is tied into a veneration for power, and consequently you will notice d-bags are fond of monopolies and monopolistic practices (Wal*Mart), corporations, and gross displays of hubristic excess. but it gives ideological cover to government hating d-bags who would restrain activities in other areas of life (politics) from putting curbs on excessive behaviors. It’s a beautiful paradox: if you keep me from selling myself into slavery, you have taken away my freedom.

More to the point, free market fundamentalists confuse politics and economics on purpose so that an anti-democratic institution like the corporation can pretend (through myth and legal fiction) to be a free actor in a free market while denying its employees the freedom to also participate in markets or government (to take only one example by busting unions). Democratic institutions (like government) are not necessary for the functioning of corporations — just look at China. But free markets cannot exist, let alone function, without democratic government standing prior to it — not the other way around.

D-bags hate the farmers’ market, which is where beneficiaries of a free market might hang out, and which, ironically, is the nostalgic symbol of free markets for most free marketeers. Why? because it’s symbolic value of moderation and self-restraint, two virtues strenuously avoided by d-bags. But also because the farmers’ market is only made possible by the indulgence of governments (local and state) and consumers that protect them from unfair competition. Governments grant them space in public places, and consumers shop there from ethical impulses rather than purely economic ones. This is heresy to free market d-bags. Something that is not crassly self-interested must be punished by the state in the name of fair competition — in complete defiance of the creed of free markets. And aesthetic or political attitudes that do not reverence the authoritarianism that lurks behind the mask of “free market” ideology must be crushed.

Read Full Post »

Charlie Black is a straight shooter. Maybe that’s how he earned $57,426,252 in fees while working as a lobbyist for BKSH and Associates. He’s also been central in John McCain’s campaign for POTUS. When McCain is president, Black will no doubt be made minister of the interior or some other such post of influence and authority.

Black made some waves in yesterday’s 24 hour news cycle when it was revealed in an interview that he said that another terrorist attack would be a great help to McCain’s chances of getting elected. That’s what makes Charlie a great d-bag in the mold of William Kristol, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney: he’s not afraid to say something un-PC that also happens to be true.

For example, he says with his lobbying business “money is power and power is the most important thing in the world”; or perhaps he says with John Yoo “ethics and the rule of law are weak men’s argument against the powerful”; or maybe he will tell the national press “wouldn’t it be nice if our ‘enemies’ could get their shit together and attack us so we do away with courts and habeas corpus?” To be able to say these things in public, things that must necessarily be offensive to anyone who loves their freedom, and to say them with a smirk that implies “the laws are mine,” is what every d-bag dreams of.

For carrying the torch of d-baggery into the 21st century, we salute Charlie Black!

Read Full Post »

It’s true. I love hate. Hate is like a drug. It makes you high. It gives you clarity. It focuses you. It puts things in perspective. It’s actually better than cocaine.

I hate liberals; I hate the weak; I hate the strange; I hate the people in my way; I hate the woman with her crying kid; I hate Muslims; I hate haters; I hate the strong; I hate the poor; I hate the way homeless people smell; I hate growing older; I hate that stupid dress you think is so cute; I hate Rob, the guy who thinks he’s my friend; I hate the rich; I hate Jews; I hate jokes, especially the kind smart asses tell that don’t make any sense; I hate environmentalists; I hate bumper stickers; I hate dinner parties; I hate anything “organic”; I hate the ching-chongs and Apu’s who are buying up all the oil, and the speculators who make money off my misery; I hate my job; I hate going to the dentist because he charges an arm and a leg just to clean my teeth; I hate child molesters and perps; I hate people who pretend to be Irish, even if their last name is O’Reilly; I hate know-it-alls; I hate niggers, especially when they’re in my goddamn face; I hate kids because they don’t know when to shut the fuck up; I hate having to say I’m sorry, even if I am; I hate ballet; I hate taxes; I hate clerks; I hate wives; I hate, I hate, I hate, I hate.

And it feels so, so good.

Read Full Post »

Bill O’Reilly isn’t your average d-bag. Not only did he finish college and get two post-graduate degrees (one from Harvard), he also worked in the mainstream press before accepting a position at the tabloid news magazine “Inside Edition”.

He is also above the average d-bag in the quality and coherence of his philosophy of d-baggery. Perhaps this is due to the education he received at Chaminade high school and Marist college, both Catholic schools. Catholic philosophers in the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries crafted the most incisive critiques of secular liberalism, political pluralism, and economic liberalism yet developed, and it seems very likely that this is where O’Reilly learned the theory that makes his rhetoric so effective. Compared to standard d-bag philosophy (which is oftentimes merely selfishness), this conservatism also places value on public service and empathy for the poor and disempowered. However, as a d-bag philosopher in his own right, O’Reilly has successfully perverted conservative Catholic morals into one of if not the most virulent strain of d-baggery.

Being a hypocrite to a d-bag is like gills to a fish — it’s how they draw oxygen. For example, the moral imperative to protect the weak is perverted by O’Reilly into a tool to emasculate his enemies. His support of Jessica’s law is not rooted in empathy for children, but rather in a hatred for all masculinities but his own, and his own “care” for little girls who are not of his family smells of perversion as rank as that of the offenders he accuses. Andrea Mackris’s accusation that O’Reilly made improper sexual advances on her is a symptom of this hypocrisy. He appears to experience no guilt or shame over his own improper or illicit desires, but he feels secure in calling Bill Clinton a pervert for the exact same crime. His authoritarianism is rooted in patriarchal masculinity, making him analogous to Rulon Jeffs or Adolph Hitler, if different in particulars like the legality (which is not to say desirability) of polygamy or hatred for Jews (as opposed to, say, Islamofascists). His opponents are always “sissies“, which in his mind also makes them perverts. The reverse side of this logic is that if you are strong enough, whatever you do is law. The problem with Clinton, for example, was that he was a politician (sissy) instead of a President (decider). Bush on the other hand can happily break as many laws as he sees fit as long as he can prove he has the strength to be above the law.

For promoting the cult of masculine power and for being a living demonstration of how much you can get away with if you have your own TV show, we salute Bill O’Reilly as one of our great, national d-bags.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »