I hate politics. Why do I have to listen to unstabbed commies talking and talking? I tried stabbing my television, but it just showed me a picture of Jesse Jackson giving a speech to commies in Africa. Its like they are taunting me! I, commie, take 50% of your money and you can't do anything about it!

Seems like Harry Binswanger has been seduced by the commie spy Ann Coulter. Stop thinking with your pants, Harry! Harry says:

Not only did she answer this specific charge, she answered every other charge that I could recall from the beginning of Franken's book (which is the part that contains the attack on Coulter). She admits to two tiny mistakes, and notes that they were immediately corrected for subsequent printings. But, basically, she catches Franken out.

The value of Coulter's book (abstracting from its flaws) is not in its concretes, but in the ideas that the concretes illustrate. Yes, Coulter is savage, overstates, ridicules, and sometimes oversimplifies. But she has a mind. Franken does not. She sees the big picture of what's going on in this country. Franken not only doesn't, he twists the picture, as in his denying the leftist bias in the media.

Shame on you Harry! Commies aren't for listening to! They are for stabbing!

At least he knows that Ann isn't acting in his interest:

Let us not forget, however, that the enemy of our enemy is not the same as our friend. The conservatives are as bad a threat--you could argue they're a worse threat, ultimately--as the liberals. It was the ultra-left Pacifica Radio that put Ayn Rand on the air on a regular basis--and this was during the late 60s. And before that, it was Columbia University's radio station, WKCR, that hosted the weekly "Ayn Rand on Campus."

My main problem with commies is that they are alive and unstabbed. Aside from that, they are also always perpetually unhappy. George Orwell wrote an essay asking "Can Socialists be Happy?". George says:

The inability of mankind to imagine happiness except in the form of relief, either from effort or pain, presents Socialists with a serious problem. Dickens can describe a poverty-stricken family tucking into a roast goose, and can make them appear happy; on the other hand, the inhabitants of perfect universes seem to have no spontaneous gaiety and are usually somewhat repulsive into the bargain. But clearly we are not aiming at the kind of world Dickens described, nor, probably, at any world he was capable of imagining. The Socialist objective is not a society where everything comes right in the end, because kind old gentlemen give away turkeys. What are we aiming at, if not a society in which 'charity' would be unnecessary? We want a world where Scrooge, with his dividends, and Tiny Tim, with his tuberculous leg, would both be unthinkable. But does that mean we are aiming at some painless, effortless Utopia? At the risk of saying something which the editors of Tribune may not endorse, I suggest that the real objective of Socialism is not happiness. Happiness hitherto has been a by-product, and for all we know it may always remain so. The real objective of Socialism is human brotherhood. This is widely felt to be the case, though it is not usually said, or not said loudly enough. Men use up their lives in heart-breaking political struggles, or get themselves killed in civil wars, or tortured in the secret prisons of the Gestapo, not in order to establish some central-heated, air-conditioned, strip-lighted Paradise, but because they want a world in which human beings love one another instead of swindling and murdering one another. And they want that world as a first step. Where they go from there is not so certain, and the attempt to foresee it in detail merely confuses the issue.

Socialist thought has to deal in prediction, but only in broad terms. One often has to aim at objectives which one can only very dimly see. At this moment, for instance, the world is at war and wants peace. Yet the world has no experience of peace, and never has had, unless the Noble Savage once existed. The world wants something which it is dimly aware could exist, but cannot accurately define. This Christmas Day, thousands of men will be bleeding to death in the Russian snows, or drowning in icy waters, or blowing one another to pieces on swampy islands of the Pacific; homeless children will be scrabbling for food among the wreckage of German cities. To make that kind of thing impossible is a good objective. But to say in detail what a peaceful world would be like is a different matter.

Nearly all creators of Utopia have resembled the man who has toothache, and therefore thinks happiness consists in not having toothache. They wanted to produce a perfect society by an endless continuation of something that had only been valuable because it was temporary. The wider course would be to say that there are certain lines along which humanity must move, the grand strategy is mapped out, but detailed prophecy is not our business. Whoever tries to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness. This is the case even with a great writer like Swift, who can flay a bishop or a politician so neatly, but who, when he tries to create a superman, merely leaves one with the impression the very last he can have intended that the stinking Yahoos had in them more possibility of development than the enlightened Houyhnhnms.

Hmmm. I don't know if I should listen to George. After all, he was the one that said "War is Peace", "Slavery is Freedom". Now, he was probably just kidding, but I have a very low tolerance for communist statements like that. It's safer just to stab him and read whatever he wrote later. [Someone just informed we the George was already stabbed - Good. Now we don't have to worry about him being a commie]. At least I know the answer to his question. Of-course, the only happy socialist is a stabbed one. Its so obvious. Why didn't he see that?



Moving On, Evidently I have some fans over in the Howard Dean Forum! Hi Fans! I have to warn you though, I'm not about to not stab commies just because they are nice people! Besides, maybe they just like me for my knives?

Also, Mao, is visiting the heartland today:

The number three man in the Chinese government will pay his first visit to Boston next week, underscoring the growing commercial ties between the Bay State and the world's most populous nation.

Evidently, Liberty Mutual is sponsoring it. An insurance company! Grrrr. Don't get me started on insurance companies.

I tried to buy insurance from communism once, but they wouldn't sell it to me - mumbled something about how they didn't want to stab themselves.
-posted by Bad Commie @ 5:50 PM