The ever-lying "CaptiousNut" aka "Nuthead"

You may remember this and this. I was Googling my surname tonight (and found a long-lost nephew) and found that Nuthead is up to the same old trick of waiting a long time, then insulting me behind my back in the hope I won't notice, allowing him to claim victory.

He's consistently pathetic, but now has lost the "pitiable" part. As a pathological liar, he's just digging himself deeper. Ordinarily, the rest of us who live in reality could have pity, but this guy has so deluded himself that the only suitable emotion is scorn. I've already disproved his libel in the two previous posts, but he's created this fantasy about me. It's said that people will believe a lie if you tell it to them a thousand times. Well, this guy must be pulling his own version of Stuart Smalley, repeating lies about me in front of the mirror every night, babbling that he's "smarter than that Eidelbus guy."

That "childhood picture" obviously isn't me, and it's likely this "childhood friend" of mine exists solely in Nuthead's mind. The kid is pure Caucasian, and to boot, I never wore trendy T-shirts when that young (my father insisted I dress somewhat formally). I suppose I'll have to scan some pictures someday, although I'm bad even about putting up digital pictures. In any case, Nuthead is repeating the same old lies, and making new ones. But why is he doing it?

For those of you who haven't read my blog long enough, it all started nearly two years ago. He had to make up a big deal about our disagreement over American Idol, of all the silly things. And of all the stupid things, he called me a socialist -- which anyone with a hint of brain would realize is an absurd non sequitur. So then he wrote me a diatribe-filled e-mail, whose first sentence I saw in Gmail's header. I simply deleted it and politely replied that I did so, because I wasn't interested in arguing. He seemed like an all right guy and has some concept of free market economics, but this simple disagreement over nothing revealed his underlying mental illness. It's some sort of creepy obsession, but usually they don't last so long. I've experienced this a couple of times before with online antagonists. The last was a few years ago with someone who played the same online game. It turned out that this notorious homosexual had a crush on me. Go figure. Is history repeating itself here, or is Nuthead simply jealous that I have such a kind and beautiful wife?

What possess someone to babble on and on about how superior he is, yadda yadda, and how he's the driving force to make people "reform"? For all his claims of "success," the rest of us doubt them. His apparent megalomania, is neither "virtuous" nor "paternalist." It's simply called being an asshole, and it doesn't get you far in the office or in real life. Does his wife have such low self-esteem that she tolerates him, or was she the ugly girl in their hometown and the only one who'd go out with him? (Fair shot for me to make here. I simply wouldn't have made such a low blow first.)

So he got himself, at one point, so hated that nobody wanted to face him in basketball. The real reason, if he weren't so "self-oblivious" as he likes to call people, is that they didn't want to waste their time, not because they were "afraid" of him. Nobody likes a smug, self-righteous jerk of a co-worker, and such people are not tolerated especially in the financial world he claims to hail from. Part of what makes our team at work, actually our entire department, so successful is that nearly everyone is exceptionally friendly, not just courteous, to each other. Tough "professionalism" where it's merited is one thing, but there's no room for asswipes or prima donnas in any group that's to succeed. You'd think Nuthead would know this, at the adult age he claims to be. Go figure.

As if he didn't show it before, Nuthead shows he has incredibly poor character to insult someone's wife. But what else can he do, when he can't attack me? It's cowardice, plain and simple. My challenge always stands: let's see if Nuthead, or weedhead, has the guts to say these things to my face. Obviously, they never will. Andy Jackson had his faults, but when it came to his family, he a model of honor, willing to send men six feet under for their cowardice.

If the French banned stupidity, they'd have to ban most of themselves

The French are worried so much about "thin" people that "a majority in France's lower house of parliament" want to make it a crime "to promote extreme thinness or anorexia."

The AP is by nature far from objective, but it's sheer insanity in how this "news" piece praises the bill:

While outsiders may still think of the French as trim and chic, France's body shapes are undergoing the same evolution found in industrialized countries everywhere: Rising obesity, especially among children — and rising numbers of eating disorders.

That's what inspired Boyer. The National Assembly adopted her groundbreaking bill, which recommends fines of up to $71,000 and three-year prison sentences for offenders. It goes to the Senate in the coming weeks.

Ayn Rand was so right: "There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."

Socialists all over the world find it all too easy to get footholds as do-gooders. At first, they may seem mere busybodies, but if you convince people that they're not the best judges of their own lives and property, you can eventually rule them completely. In this case, I'm sure Boyer and her allies on this bill do know that government doesn't need to intervene here, but if they don't pass a law "to do something," they can't shape society into their vision.

Fulfilling what Rand said, since there's not a damn thing government can do to "stop" anorexia, Boyer wants to punish those who "promote" it -- notwithstanding that to "provoke a person to seek excessive weight loss" is hardly forcing. Anorexia is a choice, and as it turns out, it's its own cure in a Darwinian way. Leave anorexics to their own stupidity, and they'll eventually kill themselves off. Similarly, if we had left the French to their own stupidity, though they wouldn't have killed themselvs off, but they'd be speaking German today.

Meanwhile, the French government is putting Brigitte Bardot on trial again -- for "inciting racial hatred." And what did she say? She called Muslims "this population that leads us around by the nose, [and] which destroys our country." That's it.

Previously, she's been tried and convicted for the same "crime":

In 1997, for example, Bardot was first convicted on the charge of "inciting racial hatred" for her open letter to French daily Le Figaro, complaining of "foreign over-population", mostly by Muslim families.

The following year she was convicted anew for decrying the loss of French identity and tradition due to the multiplication of mosques "while our church bells fall silent for want of priests." Darkening Bardot's public image in both cases was her marriage to an active supporter and political ally of French National Front leader Jean-Marie Le Pen.

In 2000, Bardot was again convicted — this time for comments in her book Pluto's Square, whose chapter "Open Letter to My Lost France" grieved for "...my country, France, my homeland, my land is again invaded by an overpopulation of foreigners, especially Muslims." And in 2004, another Bardot book, A Cry In the Silence, again took up the question of immigration and Islam — ultimately running afoul of anti-racism laws by generally associating Islam with the 9/11 terror attacks, and denouncing the "Islamization of France" by people she described as "invaders".

Bardot will lose again, for the reason I wrote about last month. She and her lawyers are arguing on the basis of law, when they should be arguing about her right to say such things.

Bardot probably knows she'll be convicted again, so let's give her credit for having the courage to fight, even if it's the wrong way. The jail portion of her sentence will be suspended, but she'll still have to cough up a hefty fine in addition to paying her lawyers. It's now become a matter of principle, like Amazon currently paying €1,000 every day, because it refuses to submit to a French court's ruling that Amazon's free shipping violates competition laws.

Hero for today, and he's just 12 years old

Young Mr. Sharp saw his mother being attacked in by a neighbor in the boarding house. The attacker wouldn't stop, so the kid grabbed a knife and slashed the attacker, inflicting a mortal wound.

Good for him. Today, he became a man. And he did well by using as much force as he could wield to kill that piece of shit. Now taxpayers won't have to pay for prison upkeep, and future victims have potentially been saved too. With today's farce of a judicial system, choking would have been plead down to "aggravated assault," and the SOB could be back among us in mere months.

Justice seems to have been served, right? But now we have the travesty of the police even thinking of filing charges...against the boy, for homicide!

Although "Cpl. Diane Richardson" is merely the spokesman, perhaps she can tell us what the kid should have done instead? Should he have dialed 911 and waited for the police to come, so that his mother could die like Hsiao Hsu? That poor woman died in her own home last month while calling 911. She didn't need the police; she needed a reliable firearm. There's never a choice when it comes to criminals: when confronted, do unto them before they can do unto you. Young Mr. Sharp understands it, why can't adults?

The boy deserves a ticker tape parade for his raw heroism. Meanwhile, any of the Prince George County Pigs who even think for a second that he did anything wrong should be disemboweled through their eye sockets.