Pet owners want to be treated…like humans. More signs of civilization’s collapse.


In this ludicrous op-ed from Julie Bindel writing in The Guardian, a clear, unmistakable, and shameless parallel is drawn between the “rights” of pet owners, and parents of human children. The semantic goal for Bindel in this piece? That pet owners should be allowed to to get paid time off from work to take care of their animals. Bindel states that it’s only fair since humans are afforded the same rights for their children.



The stereotype of Brits as a nation of pet-obsessives has been given a fresh boost by a survey showing that increasing numbers of firms are giving staff paid time off work to care for their animals. According to the insurer Petplan, almost one in 20 new pet owners in the UK have been offered time off to look after for a sick or newly homed animal. Some companies allow employees to take a few hours off to settle in a new pet, while a tiny minority offer as much as several weeks.
This seems only fair to me. As a pet lover with three rescue animals of my own, I know how much time can go towards taking care of them. My dog Maisie, well known to Guardian readers, came to us all the way from Ireland, where she had been badly abused and neglected. The physical and emotional damage Maisie had suffered in those few short months before we took her in meant several trips to the vet as well as, at least for the first few weeks, a rota to ensure she was not left alone.



I assume that whatever farcical animal-worshiping foolishness takes place in England can also be found in the United States. Of course.  First World problems are tiresome and predictable across the pond.


Bindel continues making her “case” and holds nothing back in asserting the confluence of humans having children and humans choosing to raise animals.


It is my choice to have pets, as it is for parents to have children. After decades of feminist campaigning, many women in paid employment are entitled to decent maternity leave and other benefits. Pet-ernity or paw-ternity leave is not something that the majority of pet owners expect to be entitled to, according to research published last year by the animal welfare charity Blue Cross. A survey of 2,000 pet owners found that more than four in 10 have “pulled a sickie” from work because of their pet.
Nearly half were forced to take time off after the death of a pet because they were too heartbroken to face work, and although 65% of owners had taken time off work to attend a vet appointment, one-quarter of those polled could not face admitting the real reason for their absence to their boss.



This not-so-vague slip-slide descent of modern society toward a fixation, a substitution of that which ennobles animal life with the same respect and value as human, spotlights our dire lack of fitness to continue as a civilization worthy of survival.


Besides, people have “informally” handled minor life problems in the past by simply playing hooky from work. Simple as that. No reason to make a big deal or codify their actions in personnel perks offered by companies. This goes back to to what I wrote the other day. We are living in an era when all special interest groups, even some as mundane as pet-owners, seek to elevate that which has happened quietly for ages, into a movement of conscious, formalized policy. Because everyone needs their own fetish validated nowadays.



The GOP has declared open war on Donald Trump and can’t be bothered to disguise it any longer.


War has been declared by the vile Republican institution. As if this election wasn’t turning into a nail-biter already…



Ted Cruz and John Kasich issued startling statements Sunday night about their paths ahead, the first sign the two campaigns are coordinating to deny Donald Trump the Republican presidential nomination.



Within minutes of each other, the pair issued statements saying they will divide their efforts in upcoming contests with Cruz focusing on Indiana and Kasich devoting his efforts to Oregon and New Mexico. The strategy is aimed at blocking Trump from gaining the 1,237 delegates necessary to claim to GOP nomination this summer.


Cruz campaign manager Jeff Roe said in a statement the Texas senator will focus on the May 3 Indiana primary while the Ohio governor will have a free hand in the Oregon and New Mexico primaries in the flowing weeks.


In the statement, Roe called Trump at top of ticket “a sure disaster,” adding “to ensure that we nominate a Republican who can unify the Republican Party and win in November, our campaign will focus its time and resources in Indiana and in turn clear the path for Gov. Kasich to compete in Oregon and New Mexico”.


Kasich’s chief strategist, John Weaver, said in a separate statement: “Due to the fact that the Indiana primary is winner-take-all statewide and by congressional district, keeping Trump from winning a plurality in Indiana is critical to keeping him under 1,237 bound delegates before Cleveland. We are very comfortable with our delegate position in Indiana already, and given the current dynamics of the primary there, we will shift our campaign’s resources West and give the Cruz campaign a clear path in Indiana.”




I wonder if the GOP realizes that by waging such flagrant war on the “enemy,” they will thus empower him, turning him into the Modern American Political Idol who can twist the elitist attack into electoral, under-dogged victory this summer.


Are the Republicans so stupid and out of touch?



Donald Trump will go quietly into the night if he loses.


There’s something vaguely tragic and sorrowful about Donald Trump’s latest verbal gesticulations reported at The Business Insider today.


Trump tells us that if he loses (fails to become President of the United States), we will never see him again. Wow. Sort of has that despondent teenage-ring that goes something like “this world would be better off without me,” followed by the zing or bang of self-destruction.


But no, you Trump haters, do not celebrate. Donald continues to clarify.



I don’t think I’m going to lose, but if I do, I don’t think you’re ever going to see me again, folks. I think I’ll go to Turnberry and play golf or something.



Yep, he’s got the idea. Ride off into the sunset and chalk this whole experience up to another nail in the coffin that is collective American individuality, an endangered species if ever there was one.


Our times cry, beg, for a breakthrough revolutionary movement of individuality, above all.  This is what Trump’s run is all about. It’s not about the Oval Office or Hillary’s perpetual drumbeat of Establishmentarian recursion. Trump’s flailing, absurd foray into national politics is a last-ditch gesture of individuality and boldness, putative American traits, a grand, saintly virtue undergoing severe testing in this 2016 Presidential election.



A question upon the moral relevance of bathrooms: welcome to Gomorrah.


I’ve found the “issue” of transgender bathroom use, aka, communal latrine assignations, quite repugnant and have thus not cared to comment.


I say “repugnant” in the respect that in this issue’s meta context, it’s not merely the fact that men with vaginas or women with penises are positioning themselves to use any public restroom of their choice (basically it comes down to this arbitrary decision). I personally don’t care who uses the men’s restroom.


What I find distasteful is the argument, per se, in its entirety.


Why is there even discussion and drama about this teeming non-issue to begin with?  Isn’t this ridiculous dilemma one that has presumably been solved and worked around on a very pragmatic level for the history of gender-segregated bathroom human culture (or at least during that sub-span of time when gender presentation became fluid)?


People, disguised (or surgically revamped) as the opposite gender have used their unrepresentative bathrooms up until now, why the sudden hullabaloo?  No one noticed, no one much gave it much thought.


I find it repugnant that many modern cults of victimization, especially the homos, have partaken of a strategy of “manufactured drama” in which reasonable, real-world working solutions have informally been enacted for ages, but which now, are regurgitated, and cast publicly, as sparring collective discussions of disagreement and emotive clashing for the sake of creating drama for no other gratuitous reason than merely flooding the airwaves with their emotional outbursts. Homos are good at this. The modern groups who flaunt their socially aggrieved butt-hurt loudly and publicly realize that their grievances, on the surface, are boring, mundane and not particularly attention-getting. Rather, they resort to manufactured drama, a ploy which involves unearthing a non-issue (ie, something that can be worked though informally with a handshake, on the broad cultural level) and creating a polarized air of words while pitting contrived warring parties against each other in order to squeeze maximum drama, and thus, attention, from the public. It’s cynicism at its most despicable form.


I don’t care that they want to use my public restrooms.


I don’t spend much time in them and I can’t say I’m heavily invested in who or what human refuse I’m sharing space with during those times. They really need to shut up and use them, and get the hell out. Quit making such fuss about where you shit or piss.


If you wanna fag, then just…fag.


I’m not a moralistic freak; I am an atheistic nihilist bent only on cultural destruction. The bathroom should be used to drop off and should be vacated immediately. I don’t care to make it the cornerstone of cultural tensions. Leave it to the homo drama queens to make a big deal about something so insignificant and trivial as the public john.


A culture reduced to arguing about bathrooms has indeed become Gomorrah.



The day Donald Trump became a politician.


Donald Trump has settled into the conventional game of politics, courtesy of Paul Manafort, his new campaign adviser, who has brought with him a more traditionally ambitiously committed mindset which embraces a strategy more inline with the traditional framework of Best Political Establishment Practices.


This is the dilemma facing the Republican National Committee and its members meeting here this week: Can they cope with Trump, an unpredictable personality who has come this close to winning the presidential nomination with a campaign leaning heavily on direct anger at GOP officials and institutions?
Paul Manafort, Trump’s senior adviser and a long-time Republican operative, said that Trump understands the changing nature of the campaign and is prepared to “evolve.”
“He recognizesto that things aren’t static. That what is right to start the campaign isn’t necessarily the way you finish the campaign,” Manafort told CNN Thursday night after he met with RNC officials here.


Manafort’s current mission (accepted!) is to repaint Donald Trump out of the belligerent corner he’d trapped himself into up to this point in his run, courtesy of his braggadocio and hyperbole.


Donald Trump’s appeal has been that he doesn’t play the normal political game;  something he quite well established all those months after his initial entrance into the Presidential race last summer. That was the wild, anarchic Trump with no fucks to give, but somewhere along the way, something (perhaps, unforeseen) began to take shape and unfold: Trump and his team realized triumph was a serious, looming  possibility. Victory, at hand, has turned Donald Trump into the politician we, and he, desisted. He has won us with his cult of personality and aura of anti-institutional petulance; now we will watch as his new team seeks to merge this anti-Establishment shtick into that of a traditional cog in the political Machine’s gears.


Donald Trump has betrayed, or cemented (as you wish), his Liberal/socially trendy cred by his absorption of SJW mainstream tropes.


He loves the homos and doesn’t mind them using whichever bathroom they desire (the one that reflects the gender they intellectually identify with) and he is skirting precarious BLM groupthink in his restrained, courteous disagreement with the Fed’s decision to replace Andrew Jackson with the underground railroad’s Harriet Tub on the front of the $20 bill.


“I think Harriet Tubman is fantastic,” Trump said. “I would love to leave Andrew Jackson and see if we can come up with another denomination. Maybe we can do the $2 bill? I don’t like seeing it. I think it’s pure political correctness.”
“I would love to see another denomination. I think it could take place,” he continued. “I think it would be more appropriate.”



Hardly the archetypal Trumpian hyperbole that he scripted for himself to get our attention.  Donald Trump is now a politician.


Sorry folks, the carnival is over.


Resume your seats and embrace the new dignified air.