Discover more from Wonkette
The Long And Dickish History Of Tom Cotton (R-Dick)
Luckily there is a whole archive of Cotton’s writing online over at the Harvard Crimson , where the newest prominent example of American psychopathy served on the editorial board during his tender undergrad years in the late 1990s. Based on his work, Cotton seems to have been just as much of a callow, narrow-minded, jingoistic, chest-thumping, self-righteous, brain-dead cretin as he is today. The difference is that he went back to his native Arkansas and got a whole bunch of like-minded hog-fucking idiot cretins to elect him to be America’s most important voice on foreign policy. See, this is what happens when you have a president dumb enough to want to keep the Union together.
Here are some of his writings, in no particular order and wildly out of context. Though trust us, in context Cotton still comes off as one of those snotty pseudo-intellectual types who always wore a bathrobe to walk to the shower and complained to the R.A. when someone down the hall played Nirvana albums too loud.
Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Dante, Copernicus, Shakespeare, Descartes, Newton, Rousseau, Kant, Darwin, Dickens, Tolstoy and Nietzsche.
Is this a hit-list for those who hate dead white males? Maybe so, but it is also a short (and not at all exhaustive) list of authors one does not have to read to graduate from Harvard. One must wonder, what ever happened to a humane education?
Well, it fell victim to political correctness, puerile students and weak-willed administrators.
We just noticed you can't spell Cotton without Otto. New nickname achieved!
Far from it. Even if Bill Clinton did not break the letter of the law, he stomped all over the spirit. Indeed, he confirms the adage that politicians believe with undying fervor in two causes--themselves and their ideology, in that order. It seems likely that Clinton would have done anything within the letter of the law to secure victory for himself and his agenda.
The only real way to solve our current problems is to deregulate campaign financing...A deregulated system will eliminate practically all the incentives to break even the spirit of the law. This will in turn reduce the unseemliness in campaign financing and expose the remainder of it to more sunshine. Only then will we fully curtail the power of the most inextricable force in politics, the ambition of politicians.
Also it will get us more ambitious politicians who take their advice from Bill Kristol, who has been wrong about so many things in his life that the Smithsonian is opening an entire wing dedicated to his record or wrongness, the building of which future anthropologists will use to date the exact moment when our civilization's decline became a runaway freight train going downhill.
Take, for example, class size. We complain about large classes, while forgetting that no one, not one single person, is required to take large classes; each person takes them voluntarily, based on his or her interests or the class's popularity.
Otto says size doesn’t matter. Are you reading this, HELEN????
Harvard, acting in loco parentis, should make this judgment. It should forbid smoking by all individuals on Harvard property, for their own sake and for the sake of those around them. If students or employees want to smoke, they can go to public property. If this is too inconvenient, maybe they will break a destructive habit.
Why is Otto advocating for a nanny state? Though Obama should take up this cause, so all the teabaggers will begin smoking like chimneys and give themselves cancer. None of them will have insurance because Otto thinks the good of signing up for Obamacare is outweighed by the danger that Russian mobsters will steal your identity and ruin your credit rating, so the die-off will be extensive. Everybody wins!
As in most human affairs, moderation is the key to drinking. Many people, however, are incapable of moderation when left to their own devices. In these cases the law must nurture and cultivate moderation in them.
Still with the nanny statism! Why does Otto hate your freedom?
Talk to a psychologist, a sociobiologist or a mother and you learn that men are naturally restless and rowdy, maybe even a little incorrigible. Throughout time, though, women and social institutions have conspired to break man's unruliness. In the past few decades, however, they have largely abandoned that noble and necessary project.
You see, ladies, men are like the wild mustangs of the West, roaming free across the desert, fighting with each other, conquering fillies, neighing up at the stars. You are all failures for not relieving them of the responsibility to behave like civilized human beings. Get it together! Or buy Otto a ticket to the nearest production of Lysistrata and see if it makes an impression, either way.
Love also makes life worth living.
And we thought romance was dead.
Anyone can see that a beneficent tyrant could better protect us from foreign aggression. Without the constraints of a Congress, the tyrant could act more swiftly and effectively to prevent, or prosecute, foreign wars.
We have no comment on that one.
This lesson speaks to the fundamental presumption of democratic self-government, that the people have wisdom and virtue enough to elect politicians wise and virtuous enough to rule. That presumption is at bottom a moral one because it presumes a moral people.
Did he crib this from a David Brooks column? Anyway, everyone agree with Otto Cotton's moral standards. Or he'll shoot you.
[ Harvard Crimson ]