A Tempest in a Teapot: Faux controversey over Stanley Statue

In the history of colonial exploration and adventure, the most quoted man is likely Henry Morgan Stanley. Any educated person who isn't familiar with Stanley's famous "Dr. Livingston, I presume" should take-up skydiving without a parachute or drag racing in the fog without a seat-belt.  The Daily Telegraph has an excellent piece highlighting how the corrupt agents of skewed political correctness have hamstrung a Welsh town's ability to celebrate its' favorite son. The self-righteous, no-fun, limited, and myopic people who are hell-bent on obstructing the commissioning of this statue are a laughable testament to how bankrupt and shameless slaves to political correctness have become. Get a freakin' life, folks. Do you propose we tear down every statue to Woodrow Wilson, since he re-segregated the U.S. Civil Service, or most of the founding fathers, since they were active slave-owners? Let us not forget that Nelson Mandela was once a violent terrorist. We can devote our time to tearing apart most of history's heroes and noted characters, but sometimes saving our collective doubts and scorn for those villains who merit it, like Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, and Adolf Hilter. Few things are as loathsome as selective outrage.

Stanley may have been a racist, opportunist, and shameless self-promoter. Not my place to judge (I save that for when it counts, like terrorism or genocide), and these are certainly not the traits that give cause to honor him. Undoubtedly, he was also incredibly bold, intrepid, and dynamic in terms of the risk and endeavors he pursued. Those are qualities that merit recognition and give cause for just remembrance and why he is likely one of the most quoted men in history. Here is to hoping the statue gets completed, and the vow that if the werewolf should ever find himself in the Welsh town of Denbigh, you can wager he'll be sporting a big smile next to the statue of Henry Morgan Stanley.

The no-fun crowd across the pond.

Via The Economist, there is a movement currently afoot in the United Kingdom to legislate price floors for discount alcohol. In an attempt to "save lives," (that's the worst lie these people will ever tell you, it's all about power and control) they are considering mandating a price increase for bottom-shelf booze by more than a factor of three, in order to curb the consumption of the bottom-shelf booze by increasing the acquisition threshold. What ignorant sluts!

Firstly, this is highly punitive against low-income earners. Why limit their access to something they enjoy? It seems highly elitist and classist. This law will not change middle and high income earner consumption patterns. The werewolf firmly believes that all decent citizens of any civilized nation should have access to alcohol. It's a human right.

Secondly, this assumes that these people whom they are maliciously targeting will be dissuaded by the new cost barrier. They are likely to reallocate the funds from elsewhere in their budget and switch to a mid-tier brand to consume at the same rate. Being a hard drinker is like being a smoker, you'll find ways to support your habit. Additionally, it may give rise to home-brewing or other alternatives. It may even give rise to a small black market for the current inventory to be moved. Therefor nothing has been achieved except anti-poor people taxes being passed in the name of do-gooderism.

Thirdly, it targets the manufacturers of cheap swill. What have they done wrong other than find and fulfill a market need? While the bottom shelfers get hammered, other producers of mid and higher shelf brands and products may experience an influx of new consumers as the consumption hierarchy realigns itself. It will also likely impact retailers, as the ones who moved the cheap stuff in volume will likely see their primary market vanish. It is a perverse meddling in the market, that will benefit some producers at the expense of others, while sodomizing low-income earners. Where's the justice in that?

Power to the people: Blowing smoke in Bloomberg's face.

Although oddly placed in the style section of the paper, this interesting New York Times piece gave the werewolf a reason to smile. Although not a smoker himself, he has long thought that smoking bans aimed at independent businesses were one of the worst assaults on freedom, commerce, and the individual. The people of New York are starting to rebel against their imperial no-fun crowd chieftain, and super-nanny, Mayor Mike Bloomberg, by lighting up and puffing away. Open defiance instances like this are the small victories against tyranny we must savor in this struggle called life.

I am sure that within the next few days, legions of public health brown shirts will descend on the various venues mentioned in this article on a mission to fine these freedom loving transgressors and the proprietors of the bars. However, the sign that the law is being flaunted in an instance like this is a tell-tale indication of dissatisfaction with the intrusion of government into the details of our day-to-day lives.

The werewolf has always thought that a market based solution to the so called concern that non-smokers have about entering smoking establishments would be best. If you're a savvy entrepreneur, and notice that large segments of the socially active population are unhappy about smelling like an ashtray at the end of the night, the solution is simple. Open up a hip, and edgy bar that offers a similar ambiance to the popular smoking bars, only it's sans smoke! If people are truly concerned about their proximity to smokers, this business model should thrive, and we can enjoy a tolerant society, where smokers, and their non-smoking kinsman, can co-exist on the same active social circuit. Sadly, the no-fun crowd and their imperial army of nannies can't stand a society where people are free to make their own choices. Here's to the defiant New York hipsters!

Castrating tradition: The pending doom of the bullfight.

The werewolf has never attended a bullfight. It's actually never really appealed to him and he's sure his attendance would be a one-time experience. Based on this parliamentary vote from Catalonia, Spain, he's beginning to think he best get to one. Pronto, Tonto! Before it, too, is banished to the dustbin of history and the no-fun crowd can claim another scalp of western tradition.

Based purely on what I've read over the years, I think Hemingway stated it best when he wrote "Bullfighting is the only art in which the artist is in danger of death and in which the degree of brilliance in the performance is left to the fighter's honor." I would imagine a bull fight to be a devastatingly brutal and nerve-wrecking exercise. That's the perverse fascination of the whole arrangement. A bullfighting pit is one of the few arenas where man, for all his mastery of technology and progress, elects to face a larger, meaner, faster, and determined opponent that can very easily kill him. I can't think of another sport where the cost of losing is death or severe physical maiming. In essence, everything is on the line. Additionally, beyond the notion of trying to live through the ordeal, the matador must be graceful and elegant in dispatching the ferocious bull. Should the matador dispatch the bull in a manner deemed dishonorable, his reputation is tainted, and perhaps death was the better option in the pit. That is the inherent appeal of bullfighting. It connects honor, tradition, courage, to the risk of death. These are all things that the mandarins in the no-fun crowd are rapidly trying to eliminate.

Tradition isn't always pretty or fully understandable. But it reminds us of the past and from where we came. It keeps us grounded and provides a perspective. Progress comes as a price, and certain traditions, like slavery, are ugly and need to be purged. But the sign of enlightened progress is how tolerant it can be of certain traditions that connect more directly to notions and concepts of yore. I'd like to think that a tolerant and enlightened progress would recognize that bullfighting may have a shrinking audience, and understand that saving a few bulls and matadors annually, doesn't outweigh disconnecting your population and denying them the right to explore their heritage on their terms. If bullfighting is meant to die, let old age and irrelevance claim it.

I may be typing beyond my weight-class here, but I can't help thinking that something deeply important is lost when traditions are snuffed out to indulge the whims of those who lack the tolerance or perspective to appreciate them.

The no-fun crowd strikes again!

Yale Wimps Out

The werewolf knew he wasn't smart enough to get accepted to Yale(He didn't bother to apply). With one exception from his boarding school class(his roommate), he thought most of the people he knew who went to Yale were massive defects. No news there. Plus, not that he really cares, but Yale is doing no favor for itself or its image with vapid and hollow moves like this. Regardless of the source, the werewolf is always a fan of a classic and legendary sports rivalry. Although not a stakeholder in either side, he appreciates the story, nature, and deep roots of the historic Harvard-Yale football rivalry. The application of the term "sissy" can be traced to the writings of F. Scott Fitzgerald, and the rivalry itself is distinctly American. Our society is training its youth to look for anything that could make them a victim of something, destroying their perspective on linguistic freedom of expression, and eroding their will to enjoy an honest sports rivalry that has its roots deeply seeded. The poisoning of the mind always starts off small, like this, but can eventually start impacting society writ large if it isn't properly checked. How weak have we become? The no-fun crowd really needs to get over themselves.

Reason.tv's Nanny of the Year 2009!

Nice little piece by the folks over at Reason. Bloomberg is an Archduke in the no-fun crowd. What is he going to target next? Smiling too much?

Thunderstruck?

AC/DC, one of the greatest head-banging performance bands of all time, may have to cancel a sold-out concert to protect some birds. Ridiculous. One would think that a bird species that has survived a raft of natural predators, the trials and tribulations of the evolutionary process, and makes Australia's second largest city, Melbourne, home, could handle two hours of some serious rock n' roll. Since when did that cause harm?

What's really amusing is that according to the referenced article, uber-stiff bird-maven, "Hans Uhl of BirdLife said birds nesting in the area at the time would be threatened by anthems such as Highway To Hell and You Shook Me All Night Long." Hans is do detached from humanity that he claims to know which specific songs would be most harmful to his avian friends. He is a charter member of the "no fun crowd." The aptly named "no-fun crowd" (a name developed by my best friend's father to describe modern day teetotalers and anti-tobacco Nazis during a conversation years ago) includes those who are incapable of having fun themselves, so they develop ridiculous metrics to reduce the fun of others. What about "Shoot to Thrill, "Rock n' Roll Train," "Money Talks," Hans? Perhaps the birds will enjoy those hits? Can we compromise and modify the set-list? Take note Hans, the birds can fly away for the duration of the show if it truly bothers them. Anyhow, I am due back on planet earth. Rock on AC/DC!