« SDP @ the Movies: Departures | Main | Confederate History Month »

Tuesday, April 13, 2010


Stan Gibilisco

I prefer to use the word "leftists" to describe the more extreme element of the "liberal" faction.

Our nation's founders were liberals. The people in power right now are leftists.

In any case, liberals and leftists alike have become arrogant and boastful. This flaw will likely undo them, as it undid conservatives not so long ago.

These loons can't keep their lower extremities out of the holes in their heads, can they?

I hope the Republicans, and conservatives in general, can avoid this arrogance and indifference to public sentiment, should they regain power.

If history offers any indication, however, we should expect to see a lot of saliva on a lot of legs up to the knees in the months and years ahead.

Maybe I should just watch the squirrels and grasshoppers and thunderstorms and blizzards, and enjoy my remaining years on this earth, and let the politicians burn one another up!

Miranda Flint


Alright, "Leftists" it is!

I share your hope as well as some of your skepticism, but I think this goes beyond simple arrogance or indifference. Instead, it seems to be the intentional suppression of the voice of a minority. And you're right - it's not terribly liberal.

On an unrelated note, the excerpt you've linked to is a fantastic piece, but it is dreadfully disturbing.


I think you may all be underestimating the moles. I mean, they seem to be very vocal about their plans and were willing to air it on a public internet site, knowing full well it would: 1)Blow their cover 2)Generate a backlash against them, so, there has to be another reason they did this and I do not buy for one second it's "because they're dumb," when we all know full well they are not that dumb. I think it's a distraction for something else and an effort to bait you guys and judging by Tea Party comments, you all seem to be taking the bait well.


And...the moles do not even seem to care that their cover has been blown because they blew it themseves, knowing full-well what they were doing...so, it's all a little to convenient for the Tea Partiers I believe.

Stan Gibilisco


Actually, when I wrote that piece (linked to my signature here), I rolled on the floor laughing. I mean, it's really quite ridiculous, yes?

You might like to know that the irony here is extreme. As things work out, the woman is quite happy in her situation; her "master" provides for her every need, and she has no burden to care for herself. She "gets steak every day" (the best cuts, too!), has no bills to worry about, no job to slave at, but of course little to nothing in the way of material comfort.

Thus she can simply switch off her mind and heart, and bark at the butterflies, the squirrels, the falling leaves, and the insects, secure in the knowledge that she will never have to worry about a thing.

The protagonist ultimately comes to pity himself and envy her. She is the ultimate product of a purely socialistic society, I suppose. There but for the grace of a few bold dissidents go we. But really, if we have our every need met, why should we complain? Bow-wow-wow!

When I wrote the story, I never thought of any politics. I simply strove to create a scenario beyond bizarre -- and, as I said, found it immensely funny. I think the first draft emerged before my drinking days ended, but the revisions took place under the guidance of a stone-cold sober mind.

May we Americans never evolve into such creatures as Dog Woman ... The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Miranda Flint

Stan: I couldn't agree more with your last sentence. I suppose a dog-woman is somewhat ridiculous - except that in some ways it is so close to reality. Your Dog-woman reminds me of Nietzsche's Last Man, and somewhat of Huxley's somatic people. Both horrify me.

The comments to this entry are closed.