Let me just set the overall tone for this site. Two themes: I'm pissed and I don't care what you think. If you think you can keep that straight, great. We'll have no interaction and, therefore, we will get along just fine. If you can't, well, blow me.

Ground Rules

Fresh Fury

Almanac of Hate

Rage Ranked Rants

Site search


Other Links

Backtalk from the Peanut Gallery


(Don't be an illiterate rube...click on it. Opens in a new window.)

Empty Suit

Empty Suit-in-Chief

All hail our Suit-in-Chief; fine linen serving in the highest office of our land. It's too bad that, like our president, it's probably not American made.

The Middle East is in chaos driving up domestic fuel prices well beyond levels we experienced under the Bush administration; Japan has suffered its worst natural disaster in recent memory and a potentially devastating nuclear meltdown to boot; the US domestic economy is at its lowest point of many of our lifetimes; the Democrat party suffered its greatest setback in decade; and unemployment is persistently hovering at unsustainable levels; so I ask where’s Waldo? Our commander-in-chief has been conspicuously absent, both figuratively and physically.

Our president is enjoying endless rounds of golf (weather permitting, of course), jetting off to foreign lands for “can’t wait” talks…you know, for those pressing international issues developing in, say, Rio, infamously working on (and videotaping) his all-important NCAA basketball brackets, or he is just plain mum on any developing problems. Nero fiddles while Rome burns.

It almost goes without saying (but I’ll say it anyway because the revisionists would have you believe otherwise) that if it was Bush who was in office, he’d be eviscerated by the press. Speaking of the press, it bears questioning “where’s the press?” in addition to “where’s the president?” I supposed that, however, is a question for another time.

We all know him. He’s the guy who sits in his cubical half the day surfing the web and roaming the office the rest of the time looking to engage in mindless chatter. He the guy who constantly takes sick days, comes back from one of his countless vacations boasting about his time in the Bahamas (or is it Rio?), always bemoans his boss’ stupdity, or consistently denigrates his fellow co-workers. He’s that guy. He nary has a care about his position in the company nor does he take responsibility for his work or his lack of productivity. He’s always blaming others for his misgivings and failures. He is the empty suit.

Whatever happened to “you never want to let a serious crisis go to waste,” the advice of his former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel? Here’s our esteemed president—communicator extraordinaire—sitting at the helm of an imploding world and yet there’s not even an apparent effort to capitalize on the today’s misfortunes, much less an actual effort to resolve them. People complain about a non-proactive government. Hell, I’d take reactive government at this point. Our newly-minted, ever popular government health care program should put a heart monitor in the White House to see if there’s a pulse.

Freedom of Speech…Maybe Not

We’ve of how the PC-crowd is engaging in an all-out assault on free speech. Fueled by short-sightedness and constipated thinking, libs—the self-proclaimed defenders of constitutional rights and rights not yet identified as constitutional, but that should be—are targeting free speech in an unprecedented fascism, um, fashion.

So the libs constantly whine about how their constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of speech is always being curtailed, yet it’s they themselves who are relentlessly assaulting that construct. Using deleterious terms like “vitriol” or “hate speech,” these churlish rubes have no problem trying to restrict the rights of others to posit their ideas or to respond to the political shenanigans of their opponents.

How many times have we been subjected to gay pride enthusiasts who shed their clothes or prance around in feather boas and assless leather chaps so they can engage in their brand of freedom of speech and make fools of themselves during annual gay pride parades in San Francisco? And we’re supposed to celebrate this foolishness as an example of legitimate exercise of their free speech? The last time I looked up the definition of “speech,” it centered on spoken words. Spoken word has been expanded to include the written word, which is, of course, a logical extension. I don’t remember stripping down to only a thong and an Indian headdress in public as being included in that definition. As a matter of fact, Merriam-Webster defines speech as “the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words.”

And then there’s the Fairness Doctrine. Here’s a push that seems to keep rearing its ugly head. Having lost the battle of ideas on the level playing of market competition, the defenders of freedom wish to co-opt a win by restricting the free speech of their opponents with this heinous aberration of legislation. Since the right continually pummels their collective asses in the market arena, by ensuring that these right-wing radio stations have to give equal time to the babble of the Left, they feel they win the day. What they fail to realize is that nobody wants to hear them, especially those who tune into those stations. We are subjected to their convoluted thinking daily in the newspapers, on network television and even most cable stations. Correct thinkers have only one news station to turn to for unbiased reporting and conservative commentary. And we have a number of radio personalities to seek out for rational thinking. I say that if they do persist with this nonsense legislation, then all the liberal outlets be opened up to equal time to the right.

While we’re on the subject of suppression of ideas, I ask one question: have you ever argued with a lib? Such an enterprise is nothing but speech repression. Their go-to tactic when engaging in “debate” is to drown out the opposition with their unrelenting wailing and, dare I say it, vitriol. Never are we given equal time nor even the opportunity to voice our position. Of course, this doesn’t speak of freedom of speech from the constitutional perspective, but it does accurately characterize the Left’s approach to debate: win by attrition rather than merit.

Here’s another example of how the leftist wipes restrict free speech. Though the speech in question neither addresses current events nor even contemporary politics, it is, however, rife with the political incorrectness that is so reprehensible to the Left. There’s a movement afoot to edit the works of Mark Twain; edits that would eliminate “offensive” references. This is absolute nonsense. For if these rubes had any understanding of what Twain’s motives were when he wrote “The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn,” they would have realized his ultimate goal was not to propagate racism, but to expose it for the cancer that it is—even in his time. Twain wished to spotlight the inane prospect of racism. Unfortunately, the alleged “intellectuals” of our time had either lost this perspective or are just so ridden with white guilt that even the prospect of racism in the written word is just too much for them to bear. Absolute horseshit. Where Twain had desired and succeeded in exposing the racist nonsense, the feckless liberal rubes cloaked in the trappings of white guilt academicians choose to dismiss Twain’s bigger picture to soften his tone. However, in doing so, the libs effectively erased that which Twain so much wished to expose. So, rather than learn from the harsh realities of our disparate history, they choose to nullify the work and offer nothing to our budding youth. Brilliant. One hundred years after Twain’s passing and yet he was still far more brilliant than those imbeciles who “study” his work. Nice play, cowards.

So, what are we left with? What are we supposed to glean from all this repression? That’s easy. By suppressing dialog and the exchange of idea, the libs choose to remain fixed in the status quo, squandering any opportunity to emerge from the primordial ooze and advance as a nation, as a people, as an assimilated culture with an honest exchange of ideas that advances the whole rather than just a select few. Perhaps that was their intent all along.

Immoral Authority

Here we go again. Twenty-one “priests” were suspended when oh-so-typical sexual abuse allegations and rampant pedophilia among Philadelphia-area priests surfaced via a grand jury investigation. What do you mean “suspended?” They should be crucified, no pun intended.

Allegations of sexual abuse and “boundary issues” with minors abound with these priests. What? Do we really need to hear the church insult our collective intelligence with dismissive, politically-correct rhetoric and socially androgynous speak with terms like “boundary issues?” By “boundary issues” I can only assume that what they really mean is the priests have issues with the belts around their targets’ pants.

Thirty-seven so-called “moral leaders” of Catholic churches local to Philadelphia had allegations of pedophilia against them. Simple math demonstrates that there are still potentially sixteen more pervs still out there “servicing” their parish community’s children. That’s nice. It’s good to know that these upstanding members of the clergy are taking such an interest in our children with their now endemic “hands on” ministerial approach. So, what conclusions can we draw from this revelation? Well, thirty-seven pedophile priests active in the church is completely unacceptable the powers-to-be in the Catholic church. Sixteen active child molesters, however, is just fine. Thanks Cardinal Rigali, you’ve made all the members of your diocese feel that much more comfortable knowing their children are safe. Whatever.

Another story cites praise for Cardinal Rigali, infamous archbishop of the Philadelphia diocese¾perhaps the most sexually-robust, pedophilic diocese of the Catholic church. Praise? For Rigali? Really? And what actions of his warrant praise? The scandal broke because of a grand jury investigation of the priests in question. Rigali and his merry band of pedophilic apologists swept the issue under the proverbial rug¾a tactic long employed by the Catholic church in just such cases.

In yet another story, it was reported that the area Catholic schools were “amping up” a so-called Safe Environment Program. Presumably, this program will ensure that school faculty and volunteers will go through mandatory training and background checks. Um, I‘m sorry, but what about the priests? The scandal is about priests. Let me repeat…P-R-I-E-S-T-S!. Get it? They’re the ones having difficulty keeping their holy vessels sequestered under their vestments. Once again, the church offers it’s constituency a red herring, attempting to placate them without really addressing the pertinent issues. Typical.

“Protection of children is paramount,” Rigali said, adding, “We express once again our sorrow to God for all our sins and for the sins of others. I personally renew my deep sorrow to the victims of sexual abuse in the community of the church and to all others, including so many faithful priests who suffer as a result of this great evil and crime.” I’m sorry, but what’s the more heinous crime here? The priests sprinkling their personal brand of holy water onto little boys, or the church leaders who knew of the problem, and not only covered it up, but allowed those priests to continue servicing the children?

As stated by Rigali, “Whoever harms a child, must remember the words of Jesus: ‘It would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.'” Well then, I say go for it. Live the scripture. Don’t just talk about it, do it. I‘d be happy to personally supply him with all the millstones he needs.

Of course, further disclosure about their alleged activity is simply not embraced by church officials. Apparently, the only things church officials feel comfortable embracing are our children. One has to wonder why it seems that every time these kinds of charges are made public (and almost always on a widespread scale), it also comes to light that the church leaders had known about the problem for years, yet had done nothing to eradicate the pervs from the church community. Perhaps it’s because this is a top-down issue. One can reasonably conclude that the leaders protect these individuals because they themselves embrace the lifestyle choice.

It’s this kind of nonsense—child molesters running amuck in the ranks of the Catholic church, all the while their “not-so-chaste activities” being publicly suppressed by the church leaders—that marginalizes the Catholic church’s position as a moral voice. On the bright side, however, it does reinforce the Catholic church’s newly adopted and long sought after position as the world’s immoral authority. Congratulations.


Neighborhood Associations

So, there I was, standing on my walk with shovel in hand hacking into the ice that seems to have become fused with the concrete. In short, I’m working, which is par for the course for home ownership. I complain to no one but myself, cursing at the icy sheet as though it was some rube who cut me off in traffic (that subject, however, will have to be covered in another post). It was an indian summer day (politically incorrect?  Perhaps, but I don’t care). The ice, however, was undeterred by midday’s warmth, stubbornly remaining steadfast in its consistency and adhesion. Determined not to let the laboring man go about his work, toiling on his walk to make it safe for passage, a “man” (heretofore referred to as “ass clown”) with a bad combover putters up to my house atop his shiny new scooter. Yeah, that’s right—a scooter. Just a brief glance tells me everything I need to know. All too often I’m afforded the opportunity to instantly judge a person and quantify the value of their entire existence with just a passing glance only later to find that my assessment was dead on target. This was one of those moments. Remaining on his mount—his valiant steed glistening with brilliant plastic flanks and gummy 10″ shoes—ass clown looks to me (still toiling with shovel) and calls out “howdy neighbor.”

Immediately, I knew this would not be a pleasant encounter, and probably less so for “him” than me. (Rule of thumb: any male of the species who rides a scooter cannot be referred to using a masculine pronoun without quotes. It’s just not acceptable usage.) So, I return the greeting from the scootered ass clown who sports a bad combover and, by logical dictate, posseses indeterminate sexuality and inclination.


“I wanted to talk to you about your subdivision dues,” he said. Oh, here we go. He couldn’t send an email or letter. He had to make a personal visit. It’s obvious where this is headed. This fee, which when taken in aggregate from the other neighbors’ allotment, is routinely squandered on “necessities” like a new $12,000 subdivision sign that when finished looked neither different nor better than the one it replaced. Nice. Naturally, it’s not on my priority list of bills to pay. That said, I always do begrudgingly pay the fee, just not on their timeframe. It also bears mentioning that it’s a rarity that I look at bills that come in the mail, as I pay all my bills online.

As a brief aside, it’s of critical importance that I provide you, the reader, with a little insight into my thoughts of subdivision committee men and women. The only people who gravitate to these positions are those devoid of any and all substance in their lives. They have absolutely nothing better to do with their valueless time than to spend it making nightmares of the lives of their fellow neighbors. For it is fortuitous for them to be afforded the opportunity to get in the faces of their productive counterparts and foster contempt for themselves from all who surround them.

Oh, and by the way, if you are a member of a neighborhood association…get off my site (this is the Internet equivalent of being told to “get off my property,” which I’m certain you have heard many times during your tenure as meddling ass clown).

So, I answer back “yes?” From there, mindless combover boy atop a scooter with questionable sexual proclivity went on to inform me that I hadn’t made payment, to which I told him that I’d send a check out the coming week. That was the point where he felt the need to get on his high horse (or high scooter, whichever you prefer) and lecture me about how he had to come by the last two years to collect payment. This, by the way, was where he had pinned his hopes and dreams when he assumed the position…of meddling ass clown, of course (where did you think I was going with that?). Finally, he had the auspicious opportunity to lord over his neighbors and engage his already overdrawn community piety in an act of authoritative superiority. Ironically, he did so whilst sporting a bad combover and riding a scooter. All during the conversation, he sat perched upon his scooter with none so subtle insinuation about my finances. To make a short story long, then short again, I responded by telling him not to come to my house and lecture me—about anything; that my finances were absolutely none of his business nor anything he could possibly have any insight into, and to start peddling his little Moped the hell out of here.

If neighbors suck, then scooter-riding, bad combover-sporting, meddling ass clown neighborhood associates are the vacuum into which all community peace, serenity, and happiness are drawn and lost forever. All too often these mindless f*%k chimps get into the faces and disrupt the lives of their otherwise reclusive or private neighbors all because their cheap, inconsequential lives are utterly devoid of accomplishment, influence, and value.


Men and women are disparate, discordant creatures who are, for all practical purposes, wholly incompatible on all levels. To entertain the fictional notion that somehow there is middle ground on which they can exist in blissful harmony is more than just nonsense, it’s delusional. Moreover, it’s indicative that you have bought into the “hold hands and sing Kumbaya” mantra that’s being bandied about by “men” who haven’t seen their balls since their wives confiscated them and locked them away in their purses years prior. Note: heretofore, these individuals will be referred to as “geldings.” Taking on many forms, geldings are lost to the male of the species and are, in fact, completely without hope. Geldings will be vigorously covered in a later chapter. For a relationship the bottom-line is don’t be a gelding.

Like all matter, women seek entropy. What does that mean? Entropy is matter’s tendency toward chaos and disorder. As is the nature of matter, women also seek chaos. It’s drama and drama is good. Real-world example: Your wife gets dressed to go out. She wears jeans. Not unexpectedly, you are asked the inescapable question. All straight males have heard it. Don’t pretend that you haven’t. Those who are currently betrothed, in a relationship, or some other variant already know the question. “Does my butt look big in these?” asks the wife/fiancé/girlfriend/otherwise. This truly is a moronic question designed only to incite conflict, disorder, and general strife within the relationship. As she is 220lbs and built like a linebacker, there is only one answer to the question: “Of course it looks big—it would be big on a polar bear. Moreover, it would look big in that or any other article of clothing you would choose to wear.” So, you are faced with a decision: tell the truth and risk a tirade that would last weeks or even months, or compromise your principles and integrity and simply lie. Though choosing option number two is the most expedient and most popular approach, it is, in fact, the wrong choice. The female is fully aware that her butt is tremendous. How could she not be? After all, it accompanies her everywhere. Having both hips simultaneously scrape the door jam when passing through serves as a constant reminder for her as to the largess of her butt. By forcing her significant other to lie to her by posing such a ridiculous question, she is engaging in what is known in the psychological community as classical conditioning. She is conditioning her male mate to intentionally compromise his integrity solely to please her. Like a POW, the male is expected to shelve his standards of behavior and integrity so she, the control-obsessed freak, can claim additional power over her captive. Where are the American-hating, woolen-skull-cap-in-the-middle-of-summer wearing libs protesting this form of torture? As an Angry Man, you must resist the temptation to take the easy out. Instead, you must simply tell it like it is. Any complaints coming from your mate should be met with stoic assurances that if she wasn’t prepared for the truth then she should never have asked. This also is a good time to remind her of the treadmill that she fruitlessly purchased years earlier, but that has since been relegated to serve as an expensive clothes hanger. Remind her that it is parked in the spare bedroom just waiting for her to jump on, and that with a little effort, the truth would be a more palatable option than the fiction she now seeks. This is a common sense solution to a problem that is all hers. Remember, her staunch indignation when faced with the truth is testament of her smallness. You would be well served to point this out as well.

Here’s another classic example of a woman’s inclination toward entropy. It’s a weekend afternoon and you’re tired. What exactly is wrong with sleeping on the couch? How does that innocuous inaction become an affront—a personal assault, if you will—to the wife? What devastating ill does that bring down on her? How does that negatively affect her? No words are exchanged; no “mean” looks are introduced. Nothing. It’s just you in a moment of complete harmony with nature falling asleep on the couch. Yet by doing so you are branded an uncaring heretic who is apathetic to her needs, her concerns, and her desires. Yes, by drifting off into peaceful abandon, you have effectively closed your eyes to those around you. You just don’t care. Simply stated, there is no greater offense than to selfishly fall asleep midday. You are, in fact, evil. You are now Satan who has descended upon the earth with black-hearted fury, hatred, and vengeance; bent on reaping pain and destruction upon all of humanity (or at least your spouse). Newlywed male: don’t believe it? Try it sometime. You won’t saw through that first log before she’s gnawing on your leg like a Chihuahua with a Milk-Bone viciously protecting it from perceived would be competitors. Here’s a clue to any woman who may actually be reading this. Your perception of apathy is unfounded and incorrect. Period. End of story. It is, however, destined to become true. Indeed, your perceived apathy is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Years of hammering the male of the species with unfounded, nonsensical accusations will most definitely breed apathy and, in time, actual contempt within your mate. Now that you have been duly warned, ignore the wisdom I offer as though it were provided by your mate himself, and, like a moth to flame, meander into the great divide.

Universally, women will work tirelessly to “change” their mate to better suit their needs or to meet their ideal of the perfect companion. Rather than selectively date suitors and marry an individual who meets a core set of “must-have” criteria, women will routinely date men who meet none of their selection criteria. Contrarily, oftentimes the greater the compatibility gap, the greater the attraction for a female. Armed with this information, what truth and subsequent evasive action does it reveal to the American male? Simple. When dating, the more vigorous the female’s pursuit, the more likely that she is completely ill suited for you. Advice: run away. Run far away. Change your name if necessary. Conversely, the less interested the female is in the male, the stronger the likely compatibility. Males faced with the prospect of an ideal match must be prepared to accept the idea that pursuit is futile. In this situation, it is likely that the female in the relationship already has her sights set on a completely inappropriate companion. Accept it and move on. This maddening inverse compatibility principle neatly summarizes the core of the female paradox.

Example. You know a woman. You share your innermost intimate thoughts and feelings with one another. You care for one another. Beyond all others, each of you desire the other and yearn to be together. You are, in fact, absolutely perfect for one another. That is your first sign that this will not pan out. Here’s the outcome you can expect. Count on it. She has her sights set on another or already is with that individual. This other guy is completely apathetic towards her. He treats her with the same intentional disregard one normally does when passing a homeless person begging for cash. Yet this person—this square peg in a round hole, if you will—has been targeted and will be relentlessly pursued until her life has become an emotional firestorm of apathy and self-loathing. That’s your fate. Accept it and move on.

If the aim of this was solely to criticize, then a woman most certainly would have written it. Since I am not a woman, however, I packed this enlightening exposé with useful tools in addition to critical analysis. There are several key constructs that must be maintained at all times in order to navigate the turbulent—and sometimes treacherous—seas of male/female relationships. Above all else, you must resist change. Change is reserved for weak, pliable people who lack the steadfast conviction required to lead a purposeful life. By change, of course, I refer to the change that is desired by another individual—your mate. Only change conceived and adopted on your own volition is acceptable to consider, and even that is suspect.

As mentioned previously, women almost universally wish to change their spouses. Sweeping generalization? You bet. In case you haven’t already figured it out, that’s what this exposé is all about. But I digress. Sweeping generalization, yes, but it is one made with foundation. On the surface, the changes a woman seeks are to make her mate better fit her own preconceived ideal of the perfect spouse. That’s, at least, how she justifies her actions to herself—her maniacal obsession with browbeating her husband into spousal conformance. It begs the question, however, that with all the potential mate candidates out there, why pick one who lacks the fundamental characteristics required for her happiness? The real truth, therefore, is something far more sinister. The bottom line is that women seek change simply to exercise control over their mates. That’s right, it’s simply a matter of control and domination. Control, you should note, is the predominant factor sought by women in relationships. For women, it is the Holy Grail of the relationship game.