Keep looking up!

Wait for 2:13. Cats . . .

It is easy to forget that there are many real people behind every product sold, every ware peddled. Mass production obfuscates the human side of industry. Of course, the public relations team at Domino’s wants to humanize the company to the veiwers of the video for business purposes, but it is nonetheless true that workers—even the human cogs of the modern industrial machine—tend to see their products as something intimately connected with themselves. My uncle who worked at General Motors on the line felt that he was a part of the automobiles of G.M. His job was not simply a wage to him; it was an identity. Perhaps, many factory workers do not take pride in their work and only put in their time to earn a wage, but the view that wage earning is the height of noble work available in mass production is an upper class conceit. Such an opinion does not come from the workers, themselves. Men crave meaning, and the lower classes seek relevance in their action as much as upper class, educated men.

This spring, I had a conversation with a wealthy young man who thought that the lives of the masses were worthless and that it was the purpose of the state to bring dignity to the proletariat through educational and artistic programs. Do all socialists believe such—that life is not worth living unless one attends an Ivy League university and has season tickets to the symphony? Socrates may have been correct to state that the unexamined life is not worth living—for himself and for the philosophically oriented—but I find it ridiculous to reduce the lives of all men lesser than Socrates to dust. Even the peasant in the fields may find joy and fulfillment in life. There is no shortage of opportunities to experience the splendor of God, even in the meanest of circumstances. Moral evil and destitution that endangers survival take their toll on the soul of man, but the dearth of riches robs no one of contentment. A beautiful soul may even live a good life making pizza.

Most impressive.

This reminds me of my favorite bumper sticker, “A hamburger stops a beating heart.”

Pop Watch has an interview with the creator, Emily Janice Card: “I am Jane’s pinching corset.”

It hearkens back to England’s better days . . .

Improv Everywhere’s site has several pictures of the event, which I would have loved to have witnessed. It is sad that nothing exciting ever happens on the D.C. metro. Politicians, bureaucrats, lobbyists, and their many minions are boring folks.

In the New Yorkers’ defense, what if people just sensed that the bike belonged to the fellow? I am suspicious of these comedic anthropological experiments. I think that we ought to give human situational awareness more credit.

Lind’s insistence on the New Deal’s adaptive fealty to the natural rights of the American Founding rests on the perception of a guileless Franklin Roosevelt, a quality undetected by the overwhelming majority of FDR’s critics and admirers. This willed credulity allows Lind to declare that if FDR said his purpose was to preserve the freedoms that animated the Founding, it’s simply not possible that he had anything else up his sleeve. This argument leaves no room for the possibility, advanced by Sidney Milkis of the University of Virginia, that FDR gave “legitimacy to progressive principles by embedding them in the language of constitutionalism and interpreting them as an expansion rather than a subversion of the natural rights tradition.” Roosevelt agreed with Jefferson and Madison, but only in the sense that Roosevelt insisted Jefferson and Madison agreed with him, that the Founding was a proto–New Deal.

In 1932, FDR stated that under the social contract laid out in the Declaration of Independence, “rulers were accorded power, and the people consented to that power on consideration that they be accorded certain rights. The task of statesmanship has always been the re-definition of these rights in terms of a changing and growing social order.” Unlike the rights described in the Declaration, however, there is nothing natural or inalienable about the ones described by FDR: They’re not yours to begin with, and statesmen and historical changes can always alter, augment, or rescind them.

By 1944, the social order had changed and grown enough for the statesman Roosevelt to explicitly redefine Americans’ rights to include jobs, housing, medical care, education — in short, a “Second Bill of Rights,” all of which “spell security.” That can’t be the last word, however; the prospect of future changes in the social order causes FDR to urge the recognition of “these and similar rights.” The governmental right to discover new rights could, for instance, someday lead to the development endorsed by FDR’s National Public Resources Board in 1943, when it called for recognizing the right to “rest, recreation and adventure.”

Who among us would disdain citizenship in that Club Med polity where safaris and sea cruises are guaranteed as a matter of right, where we might awaken any day to find that the changing social order has left us yet another shiny new entitlement in the driveway? The problem is that it turns out to be impossible to elevate every social-policy goal to a right without reducing every right to just one more policy goal. In 1994, the Clinton Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) enforcement of the Fair Housing Act was so zealous that it demanded that groups opposed to new homeless shelters or drug-treatment facilities in their neighborhoods turn over to federal investigators (who were seeking evidence of discriminatory motives or attitudes) every article, flier, or letter to the editor their leaders had written, as well as the minutes of every public meeting they addressed. The HUD assistant secretary called upon to defend this thuggery compressed six decades of liberal rhetoric into a single op-ed, which explained how the department had to “walk a tightrope between free speech and fair housing. We are ever mindful of the need to maintain the proper balance between these rights.”

The HUD quotation exemplifies the danger of elevating public policy to the level of constitutional rights—it flattens out our legal landscape. The American regime benefits immensely from having a hierarchical system of law, with the constitution as the supreme written law of the land, but such annoys leftists who treasure other goals much more than the classical liberal values found in a document of a less socialist age.

My favorite part is the “satisfaction is not guaranteed” bit at the end. It is Klavanesque.

Of course, it does seem a little tacky to present such gifts, like offering stinky folks deodorant, fat people diet guides, or the perpetually late a watch.

We should not put our trust in princes, in the sons of men. However, Russia gives me hope for the near future of Christendom.

I do not know if the setting is China, Taiwan, or where over there, but I thoroughly enjoy watching what Mangan was inspired to call “a healthy society.” After getting a taste of communal intolerance for crime, my soul demanded more. I ended up wasting an hour watching videos in which the bad guy gets it. Here is some more “thumotic porn”:

The Chinese come through, again. This scene actually looks like a Hollywood action movie, given the guy’s gait, composure, and perfect delivery—until he starts running. Then, however, we get to see another Chinese fellow in a trench coat take the vermin down.

I think that the tourist looking fellow is of East Asian descent, but I am not sure. I love his response. If every assaulted and mugged person acted similarly, the cowardly petty criminals would actually have to find productive work to make money to supplement their welfare checks and bastard breeding benefits.

In this one, I find it horrific to watch so many people avoid the situation. Americans need to be like the Chinese shown above—every man needs to respond similarly to effrontery against the civil order. Crime should be immediately neutralized. Still, it is a joy to see the villain hogtied.

In a morbid way, I appreciate how the creep’s body goes limp and falls off the table. It’s sweet justice.

Here is one where the fool gets shot.

I perversely enjoy reading people’s unenlightened commentary, much of it quite offensive. Every now and then, I find a comment that makes me smile. May favorite one for this video: “Foxy Brown!”

I am not one for sucker punches, but criminals deserve them. Recent comment: “And this is where we keep the cash…. *CHACHING*”

And just to break stereotypes, here is a remarkable video of shopkeeper Mohammad Sohail’s compassion for a thief:

It turns out that the would be robber repaid Sohail several months later: “Mohammad Sohail Spares Robber’s Life, Gets ‘Thank You’ And $50.” We also now know why Sohail is such a chill dude for a Paki: “Mohammad Sohail, store owner who took pity on robber, busted for selling illegal drug paraphernalia.”

Lastly, allow me to post a virally magnificent testimony to the strength that ethnic diversity inculcates in our communities, the Muni bus brawl (strong ranguage):

So, what we see here, folks, is that the Chinese will enforce the rules of civil society.

This is apparently the Italian equivalent to Rupert Murdoch’s understanding of the American people.

Mr. Seanie’s presentation is somewhat annoying at times, but I find dialect variation fascinating. I imagine that accents everywhere have evolved over the last several centuries, but I wonder if the particular British origin of Anglophone overseas settlers determined the accent of the colonists. Is there some regional relationship between different colonial accents and parts of the British Isles?

The internet is an interesting beast.

If anything deserves the vulgar “W.T.F.,” this is it. It is entirely fitting here.

That said, Leia is, as always, a rather comely lass. However, the best stage name belongs to the gal who portrays Jabba the Hutt: Scarlet O’Gasm. If you were an Irish burlesque stripper, you could not improve upon that name. She has a nicely defined jaw line (see picture 21), and her musculature makes me wonder if Scarlet used to be a dude. Either that, or Scarlet pulls off androgyny remarkably well (her Jabba appears in photographs 19-23).

Scarlet O’Gasm, however, could never replace my own favorite nerdy troupe of slutty, Irish stage characters—The O’Danny Girls.

As a side note, the first little girl who prays (at 2:09) looks like my mother when she was a child. I do not know if my mother ever prayed, “O Allah, take revenge for us.” I would not put it past her, but I still doubt it.

Also, the man looks like Teddy from The Adventures of Pete and Pete. Did Theodore L. Forzman grow up to sing jihadist children’s songs? If it happened to honey tongued Cat Stevens (apostate Steven Demetre Georgiou), it could happen to anyone.

It seems as if this fellow, Mr. Duncan, is one of the decent Episcopalian leaders who wishes for his sect to remain Christian, more or less. Yet, I find the look a bit pervy. Perhaps, my Eastern bias is too strong; I prefer bishops to look like Santa Claus or wizards. For instance, compare this Anglican “bishop,”

to one of our own, the late Archbishop Micah of Yaroslavl,

Who looks more like an heir to the apostles?

Getting back to Bad Vestments, you will enjoy the site, with its amazingly atrocious finds and its irreverent commentary. I particularly like this stole story:

This is an example of a good vestment idea that wasn’t brought off particularly well. The dove and the fire are perfectly fine representations of the Holy Spirit. Just don’t have the dove flying toward the fire on one side and absent in the other.

It reminds me of one of my favorite t shirt designs:

Perhaps, the E.C.U.S.A. could incorporate the design into vestments and thereby raise awareness of roadway duckling fatalities.

I wish that I could say that D.C. attracts noble idealists, but the District and its charade of power typically attract ladder climbing, self important sorry excuses for human life. From the lowliest staffers to the members themselves, Congress is rotten with “Do you know who I am?” arrogance. The bunch deserves the ridicule that they have always received.

Should anyone be surprised? The Democrats are chock full of pinkos.

If the Anglicans had anything going for them, they had good taste and discretion. The Episcopalian sect in America has lost its good manners and mongrelized into a prayer gathering for self congratulatory leftists who think highly of their brave transgressiveness of traditional forms. Their Protestantization has become complete, and with that, the good humored, open minded, and beautiful W.A.S.P.‘s that made America have at last become ugly and ridiculous. As in an old fairy tale, there is a painful twist of justice in the story.

Whenever the definition of a crime depends completely on the subjectivity of its supposed victims, there will be inconsistency and injustice in the law. Yet, sexual harrassment lawsuits and other leftist incursions into Americans’ daily lives have have thrown out good Anglo-American legal sense and tradition to create an environment of fear, uncertainty, and institutional cowardice. It is especially mad to base law on the vanity, pride, and irrational sexual impulses of women, which is the real result of sexual harrassment laws. What morons came up with such foolishness? Would it not be better to draft legislation that puts reasonable parameters on allowable actions? Of course, one would need a reasonable population with reasonable judges to handle such law, and perhaps we Americans no longer can afford those luxuries.

I wonder if our present predicament was truly the aim behind such laws, or are the idiotic consequences simply the result of muddleheaded leftist thinking? I always want to know which way to view the enemy: through conspiracy theory or with contempt?

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod said Greene was not a “legitimate” candidate and called his victory “a mysterious deal.” (Yes, how could a young African-American man with strange origins, suspicious funding, shady associations, no experience, no qualifications, and no demonstrable work history come out of nowhere and win an election?)

Oh, Ann, how I love you.

The Security Council deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza. The council in this context condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least 10 civilians and many wounded, and expresses its condolences to their families. The Security Council requests the immediate release of the ships, as well as civilians held by Israel.

So, for following the normal rules of a military blockade in a war zone, the state of Israel faces condemnation, and internationalist bureaucrats will intrude upon the state sustaining actions of the Israelis. Do we expect the “international community” to busy itself with every difficult decision that nations must make to secure themselves? Victor Hanson Davis states the issue plainly on the Corner of the National Review Online:

The Turkish Government as Global Arbiter of Ethnic Violence

The virulent worldwide reaction to Israeli’s handling of the Gaza flotilla has been quite instructive. The bankrupt Greeks, for example, are taking a holiday from railing at the Germans to demonstrate in solidarity with the Turkish-organized Gaza effort, which puts them on the same side as those whose government supports the occupation of much of Greek-speaking Cyprus and its divided capital.

No one in Europe worried much about the constant shower of missiles from Gaza in the past. No one in Europe said a word when North Korea torpedoed and slaughtered South Koreans on the high seas. No one objected when the Iranians hijacked a British ship and humiliated the hostages.

We ourselves seem to be getting a sort of novel pass for executing scores of suspected terrorists — and anyone in their vicinity — in our new, stepped-up Predator drone assassinations.

But the Western and Islamic worlds have a preexisting furor at the Jewish state that can be tapped at will by almost any pro-radical-Palestinian group clever enough to do proper P.R. after a desired asymmetrical confrontation. The fallout from Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount, the distortions around the 2002 terrorist storming of the Church of Nativity, the 2006 Lebanon war — over time, these incidents do their part, in weird fashion, to incur hatred for a liberal democracy while creating sympathy for a theocratic thugocracy like Hamas.

What explains this preexisting hatred, which ensures denunciation of Israel in the most rabid — or, to use the politically correct parlance, “disproportionate” — terms? It is not about “occupied land,” given the millions of square miles worldwide that are presently occupied, from Georgia to Cyprus to Tibet. It is not a divided capital — Nicosia is walled off. It is not an overreaction in the use of force per se — the Russians flattened Grozny and killed tens of thousands while the world snoozed. And it cannot be the scale of violence, given what we see hourly in Pakistan, Darfur, and the Congo. And, given the Armenian, Greek, and Kurdish histories (and reactions to them), the currently outraged Turkish government is surely not a credible referent on the topic of disproportionate violence.

Perhaps the outrage reflects simple realpolitik — 350 million Arab Muslims versus 7 million Israelis. Perhaps it is oil: half the world’s reserves versus Israel’s nada. Perhaps it is the fear of terror: Draw a cartoon or write a novel offending Islam, and you must go into hiding; defame Jews and earn accolades. Perhaps it is anti-Semitism, which is as fashionable on the academic Left as it used to be among the neanderthal Right.

Perhaps there is also a new sense that the United States at last has fallen into line with the Western consensus, and so is hardly likely to play the old lone-wolf supporter of Israel in the press or at the U.N.

At this point, it doesn’t much matter — as this latest hysterical reaction reminds us, much of the world not only sides with Israel’s enemies but sides with them to such a degree as to suggest that, in any existential moment to come, the world either will be indifferent or will be on the side of Israeli’s enemies.

Quite frightening, when you think of it.

Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has demanded that Israel raise its Gaza blockade, though the United States will hopefully veto any such Security Council measures. The Democratic Party still depends on Jewish donors; political self preservation, for now, keeps American Leftists’ Israel hatred in check. For how long, though? If Obama finds it difficult to support Israel when it has done nothing remarkable, we cannot rely on his support for Israel when the Israelis have to resort to truly controversial military decisions for their defense. I think that the Obama administration has finally decisively answered, by its lukewarm defense of Israel’s actions this week, that the United States will not stand by Israel if the Israelis take preventive strikes against the Iranian nuclear program.

I am no neoconservative, but I have no reservations in supporting the Israelis for doing what every nation must do—defend itself from aggressors and ensure the preservation of its society.

About ten years ago, I had a conversation with a Jewish American girl whose parents had immigrated from Iran. She horrified me when she said that Israel should just annihilate the Arab population in the occupied territories. A decade later, I am much less troubled by her genocidal program. I still find the mass slaughter of innocent human beings repulsive, but I wonder now if such dismal choices may ever force themselves upon people. Are the Mohammedans capable of peaceful coexistence with the Dar al Harb? If not, then what measures can morally be taken for self preservation? These are not theoretical musings. The Israelis must ponder them every day that they refuse to distract themselves from the looming terror.

Israel is like Gondor in Tolkien’s Middle Earth—it sits on the border of a belligerent menace, the principle aim of which is Israel’s utter destruction. Are we in the West going to allow the city to fall, or shall we ride like the Rohirrim to their defense? Our current leaders certainly bear no resemblance to Théoden. The master class of the modern West is comprised of legions of Wormtongues. They care for nothing of their people or their tradition. They are cowards and traitors, ready to submit themselves as dhimmis to the barbarians. The shadow has truly come upon the West.

CONSERVATIVE, n.  A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.

I found a digital copy of the dictionary online: The Devil’s Dictionary, which has many other amusing entries, including:

ADMIRATION, n. Our polite recognition of another’s resemblance to ourselves.

AFRICAN, n. A nigger that votes our way.

ALIEN, n. An American sovereign in his probationary state.

ALLIANCE, n. In international politics, the union of two thieves who have their hands so deeply inserted in each other’s pockets that they cannot separately plunder a third.

AMNESTY, n. The state’s magnanimity to those offenders whom it would be too expensive to punish.

APOLOGIZE, v.i. To lay the foundation for a future offence.

ARISTOCRACY, n. Government by the best men. (In this sense the word is obsolete; so is that kind of government.) Fellows that wear downy hats and clean shirts—guilty of education and suspected of bank accounts.

BACCHUS, n. A convenient deity invented by the ancients as an excuse for getting drunk.

BELLADONNA, n. In Italian a beautiful lady; in English a deadly poison. A striking example of the essential identity of the two tongues.

BRIDE, n. A woman with a fine prospect of happiness behind her.

CANNIBAL, n. A gastronome of the old school who preserves the simple tastes and adheres to the natural diet of the pre-pork period.

CAT, n. A soft, indestructible automaton provided by nature to be kicked when things go wrong in the domestic circle.

CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.

CIRCUS, n. A place where horses, ponies and elephants are permitted to see men, women and children acting the fool.

COMMONWEALTH, n. An administrative entity operated by an incalculable multitude of political parasites, logically active but fortuitously efficient.

CORPORATION, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility.

DIPLOMACY, n. The patriotic art of lying for one’s country.

DOG, n. A kind of additional or subsidiary Deity designed to catch the overflow and surplus of the world’s worship. This Divine Being in some of his smaller and silkier incarnations takes, in the affection of Woman, the place to which there is no human male aspirant. The Dog is a survival—an anachronism. He toils not, neither does he spin, yet Solomon in all his glory never lay upon a door-mat all day long, sun-soaked and fly-fed and fat, while his master worked for the means wherewith to purchase the idle wag of the Solomonic tail, seasoned with a look of tolerant recognition.

EDUCATION, n. That which discloses to the wise and disguises from the foolish their lack of understanding.

EXILE, n. One who serves his country by residing abroad, yet is not an ambassador.

HEBREW, n. A male Jew, as distinguished from the Shebrew, an altogether superior creation.

HERMIT, n. A person whose vices and follies are not sociable.

HERS, pron.  His.

HOSPITALITY, n. The virtue which induces us to feed and lodge certain persons who are not in need of food and lodging.

IDIOT, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling. The Idiot’s activity is not confined to any special field of thought or action, but “pervades and regulates the whole.” He has the last word in everything; his decision is unappealable. He sets the fashions and
opinion of taste, dictates the limitations of speech and circumscribes conduct with a dead-line.

INSURRECTION, n. An unsuccessful revolution. Disaffection’s failure to substitute misrule for bad government.

LAWFUL, adj. Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction.

LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law.

MAMMON, n. The god of the world’s leading religion. The chief temple is in the holy city of New York.

MANICHEISM, n. The ancient Persian doctrine of an incessant warfare between Good and Evil. When Good gave up the fight the Persians joined the victorious Opposition.

NEGRO, n. The piece de resistance in the American political problem. Representing him by the letter n, the Republicans begin to build their equation thus: “Let n = the white man.” This, however, appears to give an unsatisfactory solution.

NEIGHBOR, n. One whom we are commanded to love as ourselves, and who does all he knows how to make us disobedient.

NEWTONIAN, adj. Pertaining to a philosophy of the universe invented by Newton, who discovered that an apple will fall to the ground, but was unable to say why. His successors and disciples have advanced so far as to be able to say when.

NIHILIST, n. A Russian who denies the existence of anything but Tolstoi. The leader of the school is Tolstoi.

NOMINEE, n. A modest gentleman shrinking from the distinction of private life and diligently seeking the honorable obscurity of public office.

NON-COMBATANT, n. A dead Quaker.

OBSTINATE, adj. Inaccessible to the truth as it is manifest in the splendor and stress of our advocacy.

PEACE, n. In international affairs, a period of cheating between two periods of fighting.

PLEBEIAN, n. An ancient Roman who in the blood of his country stained nothing but his hands. Distinguished from the Patrician, who was a saturated solution.

PLEONASM, n. An army of words escorting a corporal of thought.

POLITENESS, n. The most acceptable hypocrisy.

POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

POLITICIAN, n. An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared. When we wriggles he mistakes the agitation of his tail for the trembling of the edifice. As compared with the statesman, he suffers the disadvantage of being alive.

POLYGAMY, n. A house of atonement, or expiatory chapel, fitted with several stools of repentance, as distinguished from monogamy, which has but one.

PRAY, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled in behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.

PRESBYTERIAN, n. One who holds the conviction that the government authorities of the Church should be called presbyters.

PRESIDENCY, n. The greased pig in the field game of American politics.

PRESIDENT, n. The leading figure in a small group of men of whom—and of whom only—it is positively known that immense numbers of their countrymen did not want any of them for President.

RABBLE, n. In a republic, those who exercise a supreme authority tempered by fraudulent elections. The rabble is like the sacred Simurgh, of Arabian fable—omnipotent on condition that it do nothing. (The word is Aristocratese, and has no exact equivalent in our tongue, but means, as nearly as may be, “soaring swine.”)

REFERENDUM, n. A law for submission of proposed legislation to a popular vote to learn the nonsensus of public opinion.

REPRESENTATIVE, n. In national politics, a member of the Lower House in this world, and without discernible hope of promotion in the next.

RESPONSIBILITY, n. A detachable burden easily shifted to the shoulders of God, Fate, Fortune, Luck or one’s neighbor. In the days of astrology it was customary to unload it upon a star.

RUSSIAN, n. A person with a Caucasian body and a Mongolian soul. A Tartar Emetic.

SELF-ESTEEM, n. An erroneous appraisement.

SELF-EVIDENT, adj. Evident to one’s self and to nobody else.

SELFISH, adj. Devoid of consideration for the selfishness of others.

SENATE, n. A body of elderly gentlemen charged with high duties and misdemeanors.

UGLINESS, n. A gift of the gods to certain women, entailing virtue without humility.

VOTE, n. The instrument and symbol of a freeman’s power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.

WAR, n. A by-product of the arts of peace. The most menacing political condition is a period of international amity. The student of history who has not been taught to expect the unexpected may justly boast himself inaccessible to the light. “In time of peace prepare for war” has a deeper meaning than is commonly discerned; it means, not merely that all things earthly have an end—that change is the one immutable and eternal law—but that the soil of peace is thickly sown with the seeds of war and singularly suited to their germination and growth. It was when Kubla Khan had decreed his “stately pleasure dome”—when, that is to say, there were peace and fat feasting in Xanadu—that he

heard from afar
Ancestral voices prophesying war.

One of the greatest of poets, Coleridge was one of the wisest of men, and it was not for nothing that he read us this parable. Let us have a little less of “hands across the sea,” and a little more of that elemental distrust that is the security of nations.  War loves to come like a thief in the night; professions of eternal amity provide
the night.

WASHINGTONIAN, n. A Potomac tribesman who exchanged the privilege of governing himself for the advantage of good government. In justice to him it should be said that he did not want to.

YANKEE, n. In Europe, an American. In the Northern States of our Union, a New Englander. In the Southern States the word is unknown. (See DAMNYANK.)

YEAR, n. A period of three hundred and sixty-five disappointments.

It seems as if Bierce was his era’s Dave Barry, only far wittier and more learned. Social decay is evident even among our nihilistic humorists.

A.D. 2009-2010 season:

I have read elsewhere that the creator must be a Michigan alumnus, given the targets. Maybe. Anyway, the baser part of me loves these bears—funny, ridiculous, over the top, and . . . totally awesome!