Lonesome in Massachussets
Since Oct 27, 1998

view home page, enter name:
All the wrong things: Male, American born in 1950 in Manhattan. I grew up in Jamaica, Queens. (Actually Idlewild, that’s a whole other story, our mailing address was Jamaica.) I’ve lived in Massachusetts since 1980. Happily married since 1982 with one child. I work as an Engineer for a major defense contractor North of Boston.

My interests include American History, Mathematical Astronomy and, surprisingly for a Freeper, current affairs.

I was raised one of seven children in Catholic lower-middle class Democrat family. Weren’t we all? Franklin Roosevelt was a secular saint in our house, John Kennedy was just short of being a member of the Trinity. I voted Democratic until 1984, when I cast my vote for Ronaldus Magnus. (I didn’t vote in 1976 and 1980. Thank God.) One aspect of growing up in Queens at that time is that you got a lot of contact with people who moved to the U.S. from Communist countries or who were émigrés from Nazi Europe

The biggest influence in changing my perception was the Friedmans’ book “Free to Choose

I served the Army in 1974-76, in a Pershing Missile firing battalion in Germany. I loved the Army and in retrospect, sometimes wish I had made it a career. If I had, I might regret the other road not taken.

I became a Freeper during the height of the Lewinsky scandal. I chose an awkward and unintentionally misspelled screen name because I was new to the internet and was in a blinding rage at Clinton and most of people I came in contact with in Massachusetts at that time. I was spending most of my time in Canada at the time and on brief home visits the only haven of sanity (other than my wife) that I could find was on Free Republic. How tragic is that? When Clinton was elected, I was willing to give him the benefit of a doubt. I knew he was a liberal and embraced values I did not share. I was willing to accept him as some sort of cagey rascal, a Huey Long goes to Washington story. What enraged me about him was his cloying smarminess, his tedious presumptiveness. I am still perplexed that anyone so self-centered ever became president. I contend that his greatest asset was the enormous amount of interference the mainstream media ran for him. The watchdogs in the fourth estate essentially became his advocates. They minimized his crimes, glossed over his innumerable inconsistencies, lies and exaggerations. I thought he should have been impeached for Travelgate. (I still do.) It only got worse from there.

While Bill Clinton is a mere charlatan, a pathetic creature seeking love and approval lacking in his intimate relationships from anonymous crowds, doomed forever to this degrading Sisyphean pursuit, his wife is truly frightening. She is the girl class president who always sold the most Girl Scout Cookies, who had the best decorations for the high school dance, who always knew her catechism better than everyone else, come to tell us how to live our pathetic lives. She is convinced of her overarching superior wisdom, if EVERYONE WOULD PLEASE JUST LISTEN TO HER. She only needs other people to carry out her unbending will. She is the panjandrum, the empress on the barge, the ice queen to whom all owe obeisance. She is, in a word, Elena Ceausescu.

Language Note: [BTW, I had this years before Jonah Goldberg]

In modern usage the word "Nazi" describes a conservative winning an argument with a liberal. There is more than a little irony in this, as the term comes from the German acronym for "National Socialist". For the most part, the NSDAP, (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei ) embraced pretty much the same grab bag of policies as the modern progressive politicians in the Western countries today. The one exception is in the matter of race relations. The NS policy was "kill the Jews and steal their money, enslave the rest." They differ in this matter, however, not in principle but in application.

Unlike conservatives, who embrace the outmoded and abhorrent policy of treating people as individuals rather than as the embodiment of ethnic, racial, sexual and class stereotypes, today's progressive politician will find a grievance for almost any constituent, inventing evermore novel and innovative aggrieved categories. Each of the aggrieved classes is entitled to steal from and enslave the rest, with a few exceptions. One exception is made for American Blacks who as group enjoy a higher standard of living than Swedes. Under this theory they are uniquely victimized and cannot be held accountable for any action and are owed deference and money from all White people for all time. Another exception is made for White heterosexual religiously observant Christian males, whose status is exactly the opposite that of Blacks. Despite that fact that nearly every advance in human freedom, in science, culture, technology, economics, art, literature, medicine or politics in the last 500 years has come from this tiny minority, (with almost all of the balance attributable to ethnic Jewish males) they are held in grave disrepute, their accomplishments being seen as evidence of their poor character and selfishness. (Manifestly hypocritically observant Christians, those who hide behind the Bible when trapped in a web of lies for instance, are spared this opprobrium.)

Being an idealist excuses nothing.

Hitler was an "idealist". He was also a socialist, an animal rights advocate, a vegetarian, a teatotaller, an antichristian who espoused a preverse, self-serving form of Christianity, a non-smoker, a drug abuser, a hypochondriac, an avid of follower of unconventional medicine, childishly sentimental, a dilettante and a sexual deviant. He was enthralled by a superficial and superstitious naturalism. He was a technical illiterate fascinated by the fruits of technology he never really understood and upon which he made sweeping generalizations and pronouncements, while loathing and envying its creators. If he were alive today and living in Wisconsin, he’d be on the liberal arts faculty of a third rate community college and a Democratic Party activist.

Liberal Avifauna: Why in Wisconson?

A New England liberal is an indigenous bird not closely related to the Midwestern species. The Midwestern species is derived from an invasive species brought in from central Europe in the Nineteenth Century and closely related to the Marxist and Nazi.

Although the two species are superficially similar and have been know to cross breed with unpredictable results, they are still considered separate species. The habitat of the Midwestern species is the union hall, factory floor and railroad yard or other industrial setting. The New England variety tends to shun industrial settings. In the Midwestern variety the sexes are dissimilar, in the New England variety they are indistinguishable.

The New England species usually haunts Ivy League campuses and urban settings. He is known to feed in coffee shops but is rarely found far from his habitat. He occassionally feeds at Federal and other government offices as far south as Washington, and is a common sight at NGOs worldwide.