The Falafel Djinn's Ace In The Piehole
continues to video-chronicle the war between O'Reilly and Olbermann, John gives us this morsel from The Countdown
where Olbermann once again takes the Falafel Djinn to school:
We also have news of a small cottage industry creating petitions. Here's the original one on O'Reilly's Web site. You could read the names of who had signed it until they took that page down because some of the names seemed to be fictitious. "Mr. Keith is Great" from Faloofah, Montana, for instance, "Look at My from Ratings Drop", North Carolina, someone identified simply as "Falafel N" from The Shower, Wyoming and "Andrea Mackris" from How's Your Cash, PW.
Pretty hilarious stuff but ol' Bloggermann asks the burning question:
Why did they take those down?
That sums up this whole charade -- the Falafel Djinn concocted his petition to replace the mean old liberal Olbermann with the kinder and nicer liberal Phil Donahue for one purpose only: so that Olbermann and the left blogosphere would literally eat it up. That's right -- O'Reilly tossed Olbermann and the rest of us a bone knowing full well that Keith would go ballistic with it and, with C&L being the prominate video blogger, the footage of Olbermann having fun with the Falafel Djinn's mock petition would get pumped throughout the blogosphere. Between Keith's viewship and the blogs, it creates the very humorous shit we see above with all these psudonymous names and snarky messages appearing on O'Reilly's petition.
This plays right into O'Reilly's intentions with this gag -- by deleting these entries, he can then turn around and claim either on his radio or TV show that his online petition to replace Olbermann with Donahue was a failure "because of a vast conspiracy among the far left and their rabid partisan attack bloggers" spiked the petition with lies and false information to the point where he and his staff couldn't seperate a facticious entry from a fraudulent one.
Viola! It's the "Reverse Freeper Psychology" rightwing shills like O'Reilly use whenever their bullshit isn't sticking to the wall with the majority. By pulling this massive PR stunt masquerading as a serious petition for Donahue, O'Reilly doesn't lose or gain anything that he allready hasn't. Instead, he retains the loyal rightwing and DLC-type blue-hairs that comprive the remnants of his total audience. Since he's already lost a heaping majority of viewers and listeners and the President is quacking away in Lame Ducksville, he needs to pull a Leo Strauss by creating a boogie man with Olbermann and "his army of left wing BAH-LAWGS" in order to keep
what's left of his senile, geriatric, Fundy Fristian/Lieberman Liberal base viewership while also giving them a conspiracy theory to rally behind.
So, keep your eyes peeled and your ears open, folks. It's only a matter of days until the Falafel Djinn pulls the ol' bait and switch, once again revealing more about himself than the people he's castigating. The question is when he does announce the "failure" of his petition because of Olbermann and the bloggers, will he hold up a print out of C&L's frontpage like he did with the "left-wing BAH-LAWG" NewsHounds
in this vintage C&L "Kesterson" video
... or would that be just a little too much of a self-parody for him to self-parody?
Something To Make Your Skin Crawl
... and it has nothing to do with President Bush:
Paris Hilton is thrilled to be playing Mother Teresa in an upcoming biopic.
The hotel heiress has been approached by award-winning director T Rajeevnath, who is convinced that she will be a huge success…
Hilton explained, "It's such an honour. I'm so excited. I really want to learn more about this amazing woman, so that's what I'm doing in a few months."
In preparation for the role, Paris is apparently joining the Order of Mother Teresa missionaries, and will travel around Bangalore and Calcutta to care for the sick.
I ... can't ... finish the ... rest of this post.
(Tin Hat Tip: Ms. Shakes
Good Grief, Greenwald
I'm not going to set this up nor post any feel-good knuffles about how much I respect and enjoy reading Glenn Greenwald because -- after reading this
-- it's all besides the point and matters little. So, I'd rather just skip the appetizer and get right down to the main course:
The post I wrote earlier today regarding Howard Dean's accurate pre-war warnings about Iraq was followed by an interesting debate in the comments section about whether we ought to withdraw our troops immediately. Some argued that there is something corrupt about Howard Dean's position because, having opposed the war in the first place, he is opposed to immediate withdraw now. The argument was made that anyone who opposed invading Iraq in the first place must now favor immediate troop withdraw.
That's an arguement that I'd agree with wholeheartedly.
Unfortunately, the issue isn't that simple and the moral issues aren't nearly that clear.
Bullshit. Pure and simple. How? You lay out all the piles for me:
Regardless of whether one favored the invasion, the reality is that we invaded that country, removed its government, and smashed the (corrupt and murderous) regime which ruled the country with an iron fist, maintaining relative social stability. There is chaos in Iraq because we created the chaos. It is incredibly irresponsible to just casually demand that, having done all of that, we simply leave because we changed our mind about the war and just don't want to stay any more.
We have an ethical responsibility to do what we can -- if there is anything -- to help Iraq regain some semblance of stability and peace. We have no right to simply leave the country engulfed by a civil war and drowning in anarchy because we grew tired of our little project or changed our minds about its morality. If we are achieving any good at all with our military occupation (or if we can achieve any good), we have the obligation to do so. The sovereign elected government of that country does not want us to leave because they fear that our troop withdraw will severely worsen the instability and increase the violence in their country.
Every single We
you've made constitutes the very unwieldily and colossal piles of mountainous bullshit trying its damndest to compete with the thundering piles that land at the feet of the White House Press Corp from Karl Rove's jowls every hour on the hour. Of course, it can't compete, but that doesn't mean it's not bullshit. Who is this "we" you're talking about, Glenn, especially considering that the White House and Republican "ownership society" live in their own reality of "we", the Corporate Press shares an entire wing or two of their "we" reality, the Democratic opposition have congealed into a gelatinous blob of complacency they call "we", while roughly 70% of the American people have their own "we" to carve out their own reality-based community?
Assuming you mean the latter, I submit to you that we did no such things. We didn't invade Iraq -- the Neocon Bush Cultists and the Corportocracy did. Using public airwaves Bill Clinton's deregulation act of 1996 allowed them to usurp from the American people right along side with their other assets, they launched a sweeping PSYOPS campaign to "manage" our "perception" around their desire to invade a country, remove its government, and smash an evil yet otherwise contained regime which -- after over 2,200 lives, hundres of thousands wounded, and trillions of wasted dollars -- wouldn't be on the brink of civil war in the first goddamned place had our peceptions been managed by Gen. Zinny and Gen. Clark.
It's not "our little project".
It never was.
Being opposed to the war before it began does not necessarily mean that one must be in favor of withdraw now.
It does, in my book, because anyone who supports the notion that American forces must stay in Iraq over some moral obligation to clean up the mess (which is a Republican-constructed, business-cretin approved talking point trying to masquerade as a Democratic Party one and, since the Democrats in D.C. can't think or act without seeking permission from the GOPs Gauleiters, they'll use it) is also supporting the notion of more multibillion dollar contracts to Halliburton, Bechtel, GE, Rendon Group, Lincoln Group, and the rest of the Corportocracy who are getting richer and richer than they need to be and with no oversight whatsoever (if you think a DNC victory later this year is going to bring actual oversight, I've got two words for you: Paul Hackett).
Anyone who supports such a notion is also supporting the notion that our men and women must continue to be stuck in this quaqmire until a few more IEDs unstick them from all possible quaqmires, particularly the quaqmire of drawing oxygen. Then again, maybe we won't have to wait for more IEDs -- Steve Gilliard
pointed us to a WSJ article that, as far as I'm concerned, gives us all an easily morally justified reason to demand complete withdrawal ASAP -- the security of Iraq be damned.
Farley goes on to argue -- and I agree -- that the burden should be on those who want our military to remain there to demonstrate how exactly our continued military presence would improve the situation in Iraq. Clearly, the elected Shiite government believes that our military presence is helpful to the maintenance of security, which is why they want us to stay.
This won't ever happen. Neither Bush, the Republicans, nor the Democrats are going to demonstrate exactly why should we remain because -- surprize -- they can't. Not after all these years, the billions of dollars, and the ammount of soldiers lost. The best they can offer -- which is exactly what you're doing -- are the same old and tired platitudes that we've heard bleated on and on from foolish Democrats who authorized the war in the first place, witness the unmitigated disaster it has become, and fall for the Republican "We Can't Cut Run" talking point trap. If the forementioned WSJ article Gilliard delivered is of any indication, we'd better cut and run pretty damned fast before any of these new recruits from our "Softer Gentler" Army get on the front lines -- recruits that will make the mess in Iraq look tame.
There is a good case to be made for troop withdraw. But it can't be persuasively made by easy anti-war sloganeering. There is a compelling argument to make that we should withdraw our troops. But that argument can only be based on the premise that our troops -- contrary to the views of the elected Iraqi government -- are doing more harm than good, not that the invasion was unjustified in the first place.
Glenn, read the comments from actual veterans regarding the WSJ peice Gilliard posted. That's not anti-war sloganeering at all -- they of all people would know that if one of these new recruits decide to get lippy with their C.O. over a direct order while on the front lines, the eyeballs of the enemy may see the altercation and use the kids's helmut as an aiming beacon to wipe out the entire fucking platoon. I had two Vietnam Vets in my family and if they were alive today to witness the utter brainlessness of the Bush Administration's foreign policy (along with the Democratic Party's "on-again-off-again" opposition to it) only to turn around and read that article, they'd be jumping up and down for complete and total withdrawal right the fuck now -- everything else be damned.
But if you would like to maintain the position that we need to stick around in Iraq because "it's our mess to clean up" over some "moral obligation", then you probably wouldn't mind standing next to one of these new "Kinder and Gentler" soldiers, particularly an asthmatic one that got the sudden idea in his head that he can toss a primed pineapple and take a toke of Albuterol at the same time.
Attention, St. Peter
Don Knotts, who kept generations of TV audiences laughing as bumbling Deputy Barney Fife on "The Andy Griffith Show" and would-be swinger landlord Ralph Furley on "Three's Company," has died. He was 81.
Knotts died Friday night of pulmonary and respiratory complications at the University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center, said Sherwin Bash, his friend and manager.
Griffith, who had visited Knotts in the hospital before his death, said his longtime friend had a brilliant comedic mind and wrote some of the show's best scenes.
"Don was a small man … but everything else about him was large: his mind, his expressions," Griffith told The Associated Press on Saturday. "Don was special. There's nobody like him."
That's tellin' 'em, Andy!
has a must-see video of Rita Cosby's projectionist mouth:
Rita (rough transcript): I am offended, I think, that churches would turn over their rosters. I think there needs to be a clear seperation of church and state. It's what our country was founded on. I also like what the Democrats are doing. I mean ... talk about a wacky thing, they're going after the "Hoodlum Vote". I mean, that, I think is clearly racist. Clearly they're going after the African-America vote. I think it's pretty disturbing ..."
Tweety: (interupting) "Who ... back ... back that up a notch. Going after the "Hoodlum Vote"?!?
Rita: (spinning her wheels) "Yeah, they're going after the felons. They're going after the convicted felons. They're going after these rosters saying some of these felons should be able to vote ...
So, Rita thinks all blacks are defacto felons, eh? DAMN!
The irony of John's capture-icon isn't lost on me:
Ah, so that's
how Rita Cosby uses her mouth to go after the "Corporate MSM Employment Vote". No wonder her voice is sooooo husky.
Last time I seen a HOLY SHIT moment such as this was on WDIV in Detroit, owned by Post-Newsweek Stations. The reporters at the newsdesk were two black people -- Emery King and (I believe) Asha Blake before she went to ABC News. After the young, white, beautiful blond-haired and blue eyed hottie delivered the weather, they had a segment about some baby chimp. After the sports segment, they had the closing segment of the day where a lady said she prefered men who were a little on the dark complected side.
Cut to the studio with Emery & Asha where they engaged in some brief banter to segway into NBC Programming (either The Nightly News or The Tonight Show) as the foremention weather hottie stood at the corner of the desk to Emery's right. When Emery & Asha quieted down, the weather chick piped up, saying words to the effect of, "I wonder if she'd consider the chimp in the previous segment as dark complected ..."
Emery and Asha were dead silent for about 3-5 seconds in total shock until Emery -- being a consumate professional that WDIV should've never shitcanned a few years later -- went in for a save.
According to information I gleaned later, what happened when WDIV cut to the closing shot of the Detroit River that ends the newscast, Emery and Asha were upset, hastily removing their microphones and storming off the set to complain over the racist comment the hottie weather chick made. WDIV's GM Alan Frank promptly summoned the weather hottie into his office and shitcanned her. The hottie -- who was very young and very green -- appologized profusely to Emery & Asha though a sheet of tears that she wasn't intending to be racist at all and pleaded with Alan Frank to only suspend her after she'd tape a segment where she'd extend that appology to WDIV viewers. Didn't work.
The next scheduled WDIV Newscast opened with Alan Frank re-airing the segment of her gaffe and announced the weather hottie's termination. Apparently, however, Alan recieved a lot of complaints about her termination from Detroit Area viewers, arguing that the hottie couldn't have known that her quip was potentially racist, especially if she grew up and/or went to college in an area without minorites. That forced Alan Frank to come back on the air later in the week to address those complaints but he stuck by his guns in her termination. Since the termination was a blackeye on her resume (especially from WDIV -- Post-Newsweeks's flagship station), no other station in the immediate area would hire her.
Now, here's where I get a little fuzzy on the details because this information is roughly 5-10 years old and prone only to my best recollection gleaned from the old sources (some who known or worked with her personally): in the end, she got married, had two kids, but the WDIV termination not only killed her carreer but eventually her marriage, sending her into depression. These sources, like me, felt that a consumate professional of Emery King's stature should've mentored the young girl at such an early stage of her carreer; not give her what the business calls "The Scarlet Letter".
That is the difference between her and Rita Cosby.
Probably not the only one -- Rita will probably keep her job.
Bush "Adamant" About Being A Mental Case
Been in a funk lately and it's contributed to the lack of updates but it looks our lameduck President continues to be resilient on his executive authority to display just how fucking lamebrained he truly is, according to the following from The Sulzberger Beobachter
"He's completely adamant about [allowing the UAE to police U.S. ports]," another aide to Mr. Bush said. If a Dubai company is treated as less trustworthy than a British one, the aide said, "he thinks that the signal in the Mideast would be disastrous."
Christ, you couldn't draw clearer picture to describe just how completely insane our leadership is in this country. Within weeks of a moonshining Vice President blasting a crony in the face with birdshot, we've got this horseshit from the Bush-Lord, leaving us with no other alternative to conclude that these two haven't the mental capacities to continue holding office and Capitol Hill needs to step in. Afterall, President Bush is more worried about what the UAE will think of us if we actually have the balls to say "FUCK NO" to letting them watch our ports so soon after 11 of the 9/11 hijackers cleared security over there than he is worried about what I think of the idea.
What do I think of the idea?
The more President Bush is "adamant" about this, the more adamant I become towards wanting to see his worthless, brainless, fake Christian hide (along with his entire Administration) tried and convicted of treason, and frog-marched on the same day to downtown Manhattan where the WTC once stood so that New York and New Jersey dockworkers can get a good front seat to marvel at the poetic justice of his public execution -- merciless impalement with a "Made In India" American Flag and hoisted roughly 20 stories into the cold, crisp February air before he (or they) can cease convulsing in death. Let CBS, NBC, ABC and the rest of the cable "perception management" networks broadcast it all over the world just as adamantly as they would broadcast missing white women, too.
There they will adamantly remain hoisted upon their skewers until the last vestige of human flesh and viscera rot off their bones and onto the bloodthirsty earth at which point the American people turn to the vastly overprivileged Barbara and George H.W. Bush and collectively declare, "Your crotches were responsible for bringing this plague -- this unadulterated blight; this unmitigated canker -- upon us all, and now you get to clean up it all up as if you were the underpaid and underprivileged maids of a Motel 6 ... and you will so do on your own damned dime!"
How's that for adamant?
Lefty Blogs & Neil Gabler Scares The Shit Out Of O'Reilly
John Amato at C&L
has a video of that's a must-see -- Rupert Murdoch's Falafel Djinn wants Neil Gabler shitcanned and jumps Eric Burn's ass on it:
O'Reilly: Hey Eric, you gotta come down on this Gabler guy, I mean he's just out of control ... you have Gabler picking up a far left blog conspiracy theory-spitting it out there and you guys sit there---like humpty dumpty.---I'd fire him in a heartbeat.
As you'll see in the clip, Gabler railed on the media's coverage of Veep Fudd shooting a crony because it took attention away from the new Abu Ghraib photos, Jack Abramoff, Chertoff, the NSA spying scandal, and a host of other warts and oozing cankersores that the Bush Administration and the Republican "ownership society" are responsible for:
Gabler: This could be a conspiracy in this very sense: Look at what this did. This got Abu Ghraib off the front pages, it got Chertoff off the front pages. While we're here talking about the idiocy of him shooting his friend, we're not talking about the major -- MAJOR -- problems this administration is having. That's clever PR. That's not bad PR.
Gabler, once again, smacked a grandslam right out of the park because what he describes with his "Clever PR" conspiracy is not a conspiracy at all -- Karl Fuckin' Rove has been the mastermind behind the "Use The Media's Own Ingrained Sense Of Post 9/11 Stockholm Syndrome & Penchant For Sensationalism" conspiracy for the past 5 years and it has worked. It has created the biggest streak of positive PR and undeserved luck no presidential administration has ever had. Tricky Dick Nixon would literally eat one of his own arms off to have Karl Rove in his day. Recently, Karl Rove didn't have to use this strategy because media shills did it for him as evidenced by Chris Matthews's "He Sounds Like A Michael Moore" response to a new Bin Laden tape. Viola -- attention is diverted away from somebody Bush can't find (i.e. Bin Laden) and unto someone he can find (i.e. Moore).
But Falafel Boy won't have any of that and smears Gabler for accurately describing Rove's "Clever PR" strategy to FOX viewers by accusing Gabler of lifting it from a "far-left blog" that he conveniently doesn't mention and then demands Eric Burns to fire him. Of course, by doing so, he lets us all in on how O'Rielly and FNC operates:
O'Rielly: "But you got a guy like Gabler and this is the second time he did this. The first time, he smeared me about the Christmas controversy. I called him up and he's too cowardly to come on. You let him slide with that. And now you got him coming in here with this insane conspiracy thing and ... I'm watching Fox News because I think Fox News is tough on these things. It's not a leftwing blog, alright. And you let this guy get away with it and you shouldn't."
Burns: "No ... *snorts* ... You're telling me I let him get away with it, Bill, and he's not my responsibility."
O'Rielly: "But you're the host!"
Burns: "No, no, what's different between my show and your show is I've got 4 people on my program and I will tell that in both cases -- both of the cases you refer to -- at least 2 of the others and maybe 3 were ready to jump in. As a matter of fact, on the comment he made about you being a demogogue ..."
O'Reilly: "Yeah, the usual personal attacks. It's what they traffic in all the time."
Burns: "I forget who it was but somebody jumped in there. There was no way to jump in in this case and, in fact, we have a produced open that second segment. I can't come back to the topic."
O'Reilly: "Don't you understand? Don't you understand -- I would've edited it. To tell you the truth. I would've edited that out because ... "
O'Reilly: "Here's the danger: this guy Gabler whom you shouldn't have on the program, by the way, but I don't run Fox News. I'd fire him in a heartbeat and bring in a responsible person. He traffics in personal attacks, this guy. He brings in insane stuff ... you know, your show is supposed to be the watchdog of the media and you have a rabid dog in there. And it's just not playing."
As clear as water, Bill O'Reilly ambushes Eric Burns (a conservative shill but a reasonable shill by FOX's standards, no less) by "playing politics" hoping that it forces the more honest and reasonable voices -- whose sole credential of liberalism is by simply being liberal and unapologetic with the truth -- to either know their place within Rupert Murdoch's plantation, or a hostile working environment will be created by the loudmouth complainers and whiners as a means of encouraging those people to resign if they don't play ball and kowtow to the status-quo.
The very fact that Bill O'Reilly performs this ambush on his show in complete view of the public (as opposed to playing this game behind the scenes) shows you exactly what Fox News Channel's agenda really is -- to be nothing more than a rabid rightwing political PR network; not a news network. Since O'Rielly has declared that he would've edited Gabler out that News Watch segment only goes to shows that Gabler is not being "cowardly" but justified as all hell for refusing to go on The Factor -- O'Rielly will edit the segment to make himself look good. Neil Gabler sure as hell won't fall for that dirty trick and Bill knows it, hence the slime.
To properly understand why O'Rielly is singling out Neil Gabler, though, one must look at Gabler's own consistancy and continuity when he offers his own analysis of the media. In other words, who is he usually firing off at? The answer is simple: Conservatives. It all started almost a year ago to the very day and his target wasn't O'Rielly but it sure put him on the Falafel Djinn's shitlist. Take a trip down TBT memory lane with another Fox News Watch segment -- Gannon-Gate
ERIC BURNS: The dust has settled, some time has passed, and the daily press credential will be issued no more. So, it's time to look back at the amazing adventures of Jim Guckert -- AKA Jeff Gannon -- a right wing political operative who dreamed of being a $200 a night gay escort. Everyone should have a dream ... [dryly]
JIM PINKERTON: Right, although I think you were unfair calling him 'right-wing' in your intro.
ERIC BURNS: Really?!?
JIM PINKERTON: I do ...
NEIL GABLER: I think you were unfair calling him a 'journalist'.
ERIC BURNS: So, is that what this is about then, Neil? Is this about the softball questions because of the political orientation of the person ...
NEIL GABLER: Absolutely not.
ERIC BURNS: What is it, then?
NEIL GABLER: There are many many journalists - and we know alot of them - who ACT like partisan hacks. This guy WAS a partisan hack. And there's a difference.
CAL THOMAS: I'm not a partisan hack, but I play one on TV. Is that it, right?
NEIL GABLER: Yes. He worked for a GOP operative. He would not have been credentialed and was NOT credentialed by Congress for precisely that reason. Among other things, they have a rule that if you're a lobbiest for an organization, you can not be credentialed. So, this issue here is that this person should have NEVER been credentialed, was not credentialed by Congress, and we know the ... I know there's some Democrats that disingenously are trying to investigate how he got credentialed. We KNOW how he got credentialed -- the White House wanted him there. They wanted him to ask softball questions and ...
ERIC BURNS: What about the guy Jim mentioned asking hardball questions? They certainly didn't want that, did they, Neil?
NEIL GABLER: Well, then he shouldn't even be there. But the point of the fact is I don't know whether or not he got a daily credential every single day as Guckert did. Every day for ... for years ...
CAL THOMAS: I agree with that and there's another point to be made. The Congressional press galleries, as Jim says, for years, has credentialed and decided who is a ligitimate journalist and who is not. They're really behind the times on this Internet stuff. Slate, for example, and some other conservative websites. Who IS a journalist? I think that is something that needs to be looked into again and new rules established.
NEIL GABLER: Guckert, by the way, thanks among other people Karl Rove for his insistance, encouragement, and guidance. I think that is very, very interesting.
Gabler has had a hotstreak over the last year bulldozing the most unforgetable piles of bullshit peddled out into realm of public discourse by the GOP, Bush Administration, and their press flaks. He not only smacked the media senseless with Gannon-Gate, but his accurate portrayal of the Rovian "Clever PR" conspiracy that O'Reilly is bitching about in this clip and the kicking the legs out from under the Falafel Djinn's demogogic "War On Christmas" barstool together round out the other two strikes against him with Batshit Bill. Therefore, in his eyes, both Neil Gabler and left blogistan are threats -- threats because they possess the only thing that can destroy Republican lives, Republican careers, and Republican families: the truth.
Some thanks are to be given to Batshit Bill, however, by his repeated smearing of blogs and his accusation that Gabler's "Clever PR" conspiracy came from a "leftwing blog" instead of watching Karl Rove's fat ass in action. Whenever blogs are mentioned within the mainstream media -- whether it's praise or damnation -- it's a bonus to the blogosphere because it's an open admittence that blogs are being a hell of lot more interesting than they are. They wouldn't be talking about us -- and therefore granting us free publicity to turn into positive relevancy -- if we weren't being interesting.
Bill's lack of citing the "leftwing blog" that he alledges Gabler lifting the conspiracy theory from was a disengenous way for Bill to not give that blog publicity since the last thing O'Rielly wants is his viewers (what remains of them) to visit the "leftwing blog" and see for themselves if O'Rielly's jargon is either spot-on accurate or bullshit. Doesn't matter though -- by mentioning blogs and attacking them, his viewers might just find out what we're all cracked up to be anyway.
Keep those smears coming, Bill, you sanctimonious slapass. Pretty soon, you'll be spinning so fast, you'll be throwing yourself off your own barstool, saving us the trouble. Not that we're complaining -- letting you run headlong to crash tin-hat first into the brick wall of reality is hardly any trouble at all.
WARNING: This Following May Make You Moist
Since I have no webcam, you never really know what my happy ol' pockmarked ass could be doing here when my fingers get all motivated over this keyboard. You don't know if I'm half-clothed, fully-clothed, or as buck fuckin' naked as a shaved shit house rat with a pituitary gland disorder. Some hotty could be giving me a nice hand job, blow job, knob job, bob job, or rim job. My ballsack could be either cupped by a confortable pair of boxers, briefs, resting innocently against the cushion of the computer chair or an ample female breast, or being lovingly caressed by the forementioned hotty with the "go-get-'em" work ethic. I just might be getting more pussy than your lesbian sister. Then again, maybe I'm getting more pussy than you
, my dear lebian readers. But you lebsians could also be getting more action than my sorry ass in a penal prison with shitload of pardons in one fist and a box of condoms in the other.
It's possible that I'm in the middle of banging some hot petite little red head until her freckles fly off. Or she could be banging me until my teeth rattle out of my skull, my spinal collumn decalifies, and/or my testicles implode ... then her freckles fly off. My Johnson could be bigger than yours or your purple helmut warrior could be Goliath to my David. Maybe -- just maybe -- I'm not really typing this at all ... but instead have procured the services of a family member (or the next hoe I'll be doing shortly) to give you all this information while my white, narrow, bubblicious hiney is bouncing up and down on the previous mentioned petite redhead. She could be clawing my back, I could be nibbling on her jugular, or maybe I'm just sitting here all by lonesome hammering on a bottle of Grey Goose looking for an elusive file on my harddrive somewhere but got sidetracked into wallowing in my pornstash, and my imagination just went north from there.
Could. Maybe. Possible. Might. You never know.
But you might not even care. That's possible, too. You might be sitting there reading this and saying, "You go, Sy! Get you some of that prime, choice, succulent ass," or "I didn't come here to read this shit," as your mouse hovers over the BACK button of your browser, or you could be saying, "Too bad you (or your hotties) aren't here right now, blogger-boy, because I've got more kinks than a White House Press release that I wouldn't mind showing to you (or your hotties), motherfucker!"
Or you might be just plain indifferent to it all. You could simply be just as content with your own crotch and have no emotional stake in mine whatsoever. That's probably the case, right? I'm not engaging in all of that though -- just sitting here running my big fat e-mouth. Because I feel like it.
But to somebody else, they could be pissed about the idea. Totally fuckin' unglued that I could be getting off myself or helping someone else get off. Completely batshit livid that maybe my dick is getting pampered or I'm pampering some serious boobage or clit. Getting all fuckin' hot and bothered at the mere possibility that I'm having just a big orgiastic time here at my keyboard and they're not.
Who might those jealous fuckers be? The True-Believers of the Dept. Of Homeland Security:
Two uniformed men strolled into the main room of the Little Falls library in Bethesda one day last week and demanded the attention of all patrons using the computers. Then they made their announcement: The viewing of Internet pornography was forbidden.
The men looked stern and wore baseball caps emblazoned with the words "Homeland Security." The bizarre scene unfolded Feb. 9, leaving some residents confused and forcing county officials to explain how employees assigned to protect county buildings against terrorists came to see it as their job to police the viewing of pornography.
That's right, kiddies. Somebody out there somewhere has a JPEG image of a monalithic phallus and the Bush-Lord's Christian Republican Guard are just as intimidated by that the JPEG as they are of the real fuckin' package it belongs to:
Romer said the officers believed they were enforcing the county's sexual harassment policy but "overstepped their authority" and had to be reminded that Montgomery "supports the rights of patrons to view the materials of their choice."
Oooh, somebody check on Pat Robertson - his nipples will be getting hard from that.
The next few paragraphs will make Jerry Falwell's balls start sweating from something other than his fat blubber:
The sexual harassment policy forbids the "display of offensive or obscene printed or visual material." But in a library, which is both a public arena and a county workplace, the U.S. Constitution trumps Montgomery's rules.Dr. James Kennedy: "Well, fuck me running like Freddie Mercury in a wet pair of leotards, it's the Constitution again. When is that sonofabitchin' President we rigged two elections for going to get around to scrapping that worthless, Godless, peice of damned paper?!? He better getting his Jesus-loving ass on the ball here or I make sure he and his Texas ranch burn forever in the pits of HAAAALE!"
At most public libraries in the Washington area, an adult can view pornography on a library computer more or less unfettered. Montgomery asks customers to be considerate of others when viewing Web sites. If others are put off, librarians will provide the viewer of the offending material with a "privacy screen."
Fairfax County forbids library use of the Internet to view child pornography ... Pope Palpitine: "FUCK ... erm, I mean, thank blessed Mary for that."
But Fairfax library spokeswoman Lois Kirkpatrick said, "Librarians are not legally empowered to determine obscenity." Pope Palpitine: "Oh, that sucks because I ... I likes ... naked boys ... especially blondheaded ... FUCK!"
Still, Montgomery plans to train its homeland security officers "so they fully understand library policy and its consistency with residents' First Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution," Romer said in his statement.
I know -- I said I'd never link to the WaPo again but I couldn't resist and it's mainly because of that last paragraph. Nevermind the fact that a bunch of Fundy Fristian Feds got their scrotums all wrinkled by the idea that D.C. library patrons can consume porn from a public terminal and damn near went all Roland of Gilead on somebody because of it, but the final paragraph is the most omnious motherfucker I've read in a long time: federal agents having to undergo fuckin' training to fully understand our 1st Amendment rights?!? Holy Sacrement Wafers, Batman!
I've got the perfect training for these assholes -- strip them of all academic credentials such as any college degrees, High School diplomas, or GEDs, and then re-enroll their asses back into goddamned grade school. Afterall, 3rd Grade was enough training for most of us and their special need for more training tells me they apparently failed and should've been flunked or held back. So, yeah, let's have Uncle Sam give them a fuckin' Hello Kitty lunchbox, a peck on the check, and a kick in ass out the door.
Perhaps Preznit Georgie-poo can join them?
(Hat Tip: AmericaBlog
Veep Fudd Pulls A Hitler
No, I'm Not Making This Up!
Vice President Dick Cheney says he has the power to declassify government secrets, raising the possibility that he authorized his former chief of staff to pass along sensitive prewar data on Iraq to reporters.
Cheney coupled his statement in a TV interview Wednesday with an endorsement of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his ex-aide. Libby is under indictment on charges of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI about disclosing the identity of undercover CIA officer Valerie Plame.
The exective order Veep Fudd talks about is E.O 13292 which grants both the President and Vice-President amended powers on how they can classify information. But that's not what Cheney claimed in the interview with Brit Hume -- that these powers grant him the power to declassify
information. Of course, the NRO's rightwing screwball supreme Byron York
carries Cheney's elephant gun in his typical disengenous fashion:
At the time, Bush's order received very little coverage in the press. What mention there was focused on the order's provisions making it easier for the government to keep classified documents under wraps. But as Cheney pointed out Wednesday, the Bush order also contained a number of provisions which significantly increased the vice president's power ...
But Executive Order 13292 is real evidence of real power in the vice president's office. Since the beginning of the administration, Dick Cheney has favored measures allowing the executive branch to keep more things secret. And in March of 2003, the president gave him the authority to do it.
Here's where the disengenous part comes in: throughout York's article, he makes it clear twice that Cheney does indeed have the power to keep information secret and I've emphesized those portions. However, not once does York cite a refference within E.O 13292 that says Cheney has the power to declassify or otherwise blow the lid off of secret information and that
is power that Cheney claimed to have in the Hume interview. Not to be outdone, Kyra Phillips just a few moments ago on CNN with Bob Barr done the exact same thing -- recited the same portions York does and then suddenly concludes "it appears Cheney is right" and Bob Barr had to set her straight. Jesus fucking Christ, can't Phillips and York understand plain English?!?
It's clear now that, through this executive order, Veep Cheney is trying to justify two criminal actions. First, that the blasting of his crony in the face with birdshot completely under the influence of alcohol was a matter of national security and thus he had the power to keep it secret from the American public for 24 hours. But the media and left blogistan has allready shot this full of holes, finding inconstancies, inaccuracies, and outright fucking lies
from the Hume interview itself and if the media or Congress ever wants to uncover even more of these lies, they can find better eyewitnesses within Cheney's own Secret Service detail than lying-out-her-ass ranch owner and Bush/Cheney crony Katharine Armstrong.
The second is the idea the executive order gives him power to declassify secret information to whatever fancies him under the false rubric "national security". What secret information could jeopardize national security in Cheney's eyes to the point where he had to blow the whistle on government secrets? Simple: the secret of Valerie Plame's covert status as a CIA NOC. This isn't just an admittance from Cheney -- it's an open and direct dare to the American people to do something about it.
I hereby donate six slugs of indictment-shot for the boomstick of Yosemite Fitzpatrick so that he can remind Veep Fudd via a good peppering that our American republic is not spelled W-E-I-M-A-R
A Real Hollow Army
reports that the U.S. Army's new "kinder and gentler approach" to boost recruitment numbers has drill instructors and vets worried. It's absolutely ridiculous. Attention Mr. Rumsfeld -- our drill instructors are trying to make soldiers out of pussies; not increase business for morticians and the ammount of white crosses at Arlington.
What the fuck is wrong with you?!?
Daddy's Valentine & Savior
Gwendolyn Marit Sizemore (Age 5)
Born Valentine's Day Morning 2001
Before you came along, Valentine's Day was a day I, your father, loathed with every fiber of my being. I loathed that day because it never agreed with me. Because of my shyness and bashfulness (which you've inherited from me and I hope it doesn't create nowhere near as many problems for you as it did me), Valentine's Day was a day that I usually spent walking home in the dark alone with nothing but my tears and passing cars as my company. A day where instead of being with a female companion, I returned to my 4 walled prison.
You see, it's not the fact I didn't love anyone. Quite the opposite -- I loved plenty and Valentine's Day is supposed to be a day where I was supposed to be victorious of my shyness; my bashfulness and confess my feelings to whatever lady I had a crush on at the time when, on any other day, my track record suggests that I'd never do so. My friends thought that I feared rejection.
They were wrong -- I feared acceptance.
Rejection is the easy part because, despite the fact that knowing the truth too late and watching the girl I had my eyes on depart hand-in-hand with another man, the familiarity of walking the 7 mile trip home alone crying all the way was something that I had grown used to. That and my 4 walls at home was the devil I always knew and, for some strange reason, the more it happened, the less I feared it and instead came to not only expect it, but sort of cherish it. Embrace it.
Acceptance, on the other hand, was the devil I never knew. The idea that I could be so lucky as to being readily accepted by a lady who not only shared my feelings but was so patient that she hadn't bailed on me because my shyness and bashfulness made getting own ass in gear so debilitating was simply something I could not fathom. I couldn't fathom it because it never happened and I was convinced that it never would. In fact, only one lady in my life has ever accepted me but a combination of her parent's issue with our age difference and my own fatalistic pipe-dreaming destroyed it.
"No! Never happen to me! My love is a curse; a fucking poison."
But then you came on a Valentine's Day ...
And to think: I wasted alot of tears over women less worthy.
Haha, they aren't event remotely in your league!
----I tried to build a wall,
And let nobody in
Without love and without pain
Don't know why but every time
I look in your face,
I am caught and I relapse again ...
Carry on and I will forever
Longing drives bad memories away
And still I ...
Carry on and I will forever
When I see you smile
I dare to believe again ... "Forever"
Crony Leghorn's Last Words To Veep Fudd
No, No, No! What in tar nayshun, ahh said, what in tar nayshun is wrong with ya, son?!? Ya done shots the wrong squab!
Ya were supposed to shoot this
one. Or this
one right heah. Oh, and thars ... PAY ATTENTION WHEN I'M TALKIN' TO YA, BOY!!
(Nice VP we got here, folks, but he's got the acumen of a bag of hammers) Now, whar wuz aah?!? Oh-oh, yes -- even at this distance, boy, that one ovah yondah
is fat, sloven, and hard ta miss even with your cross-eyededness.
But first, ya gotta remove the bird-shot from the chamber. See, like dat? Ya then takes a slug of 00-Buckshot and shove it in like dat, see? More powah, boy. It's what you've been grabbin' fore all along. Just rack it, point, and open fire. Now, is any of this getting through that ol' snaggle-toothed head of yorez?!? Good, son, now give it a whirl.
Excellent, boy -- you're tracking her real good.
Easy ... easy, boy ... on the the count of three ... 1 ... *B'LUMPH!*
The Photo Finish
The above photo showing a bearded Jack Abramoff languishing in the background as President Doofus shakes hands with an Indian tribal leader has just been released by TIME Magazine
After weeks in which the White House has declined to release pictures of President Bush with Jack Abramoff, the disgraced lobbyist, the first photograph to be published of the two men shows a small, partly obscured image of Mr. Abramoff looking on from the background as Mr. Bush greets a Texas Indian chief in May 2001.AmericaBlog
By itself, the picture hardly seems worthy of the White House's efforts to keep it out of the public eye. Mr. Abramoff, a leading Republican fund-raiser who pleaded guilty last month to conspiring to corrupt public officials, is little more than a blurry, bearded figure in the background at a gathering of about two dozen people ...
The White House confirmed the authenticity of the photograph.
uncovers a few morsels I can't find in the TIME article but are interesting nonetheless:
Talking about the photo, Abramoff has told friends, "I was standing right next to the window and after the picture was taken, the President came over and shook hands with me, and we chatted and joked." A photograph of that scene as described by Abramoff was shown to TIME two weeks ago. Abramoff's lawyers have said that their client has long had photographs of himself with Bush, but that he has no intention of releasing any of them.
Okay, that's typical of lawyers but the next sentence makes me wonder... :
Abramoff would not comment on the matter.
We've got two matters here. This leaked photo is one matter; a matter that Jack's lawyers commented on by admitting that Jack has even more unreleased photos of himself with Bush and that
is another matter in of itself. So, which of those two matters does Jack not wish to comment on? If it's the latter, Jack's lawyers might want to pay their client a visit and get further clarification because -- in cases like these -- it's not entirely uncommon for the client's lawyers to say one thing while the client keeps more private intentions to himself.
Bailing On dKos
It's official -- as soon as this post is finished, I will have absolutely nothing to do with anything involving Markos Moulitsas on it and DailyKos will be wiped from my Truth Disciples. Four days ago, Kos royally fucked up as Pam Spaulding
catch Kos bailing on the effectiveness progressive women have been having on the Blogosphere by essentually waxing elitist meritocratic nonsense. Then just hours ago, I catch this
from Kos regarding a casting call for the commericial of the book he co-authored with Jerome:
We need people for the commercial, people who look like the Democratic Party -- workers in hard hats, moms with kids, men and women in business suits, hippies, young and old, all colors, enviro types, college professors, young women, someone in a wheelchair, etc.
When I read this, I didn't take note of what Kos includes in his "look" of the Democratic Party. Instead, I took notice at what he conveniently leaves out of the picture
. Let's break this fucker down -- Kos wants "workers in hard hats" as opposed to workers in softhats such as burger flippers at McDonalds or nurses wiping asses in hospitals and group homes. Therefore, the working poor need not apply? Oh, but Kos suddenly (and oh so disengenously) wants women but there's a qualifier: "moms with kids". Yeah, as opposed to "fathers with kids" because apparently Kos doesn't think they exist and probably marches in perfect goose-step to the status-quo notion that single fathers with kids are defacto deadbeats -- a myth that has been shattered in 1998 by Dr. Sanford Braver
who conducted the longest and most expensive ($10 Million large over the course of 8 years) federal study on the subject.
He doesn't want them and apparently there isn't a single divorced/seperated Dad within the entire fucking community over there so, "deadbeat Dads" along with women without children need not apply to Kos casting call. Afterall, the only kids he cares about are his own -- your kids are either convenient props for his commercial (at best, ladies) or drains on society and his pocket book (at worst, Daddy-o!)
Whoa! Wait a second here -- maybe not. I could be getting ahead myself because Kos asks next for "men and women in business suits" so perhaps he's not so selectively anti-women as he lead on. Oh, but they've got to be in business suits as opposed to people not in business suits -- skilled union labor workers in the automotive and construction industries (to name but a few) don't business suits. You don't apply.
From there, he wants "hippies" which I don't understand because it seems obvious by now Kos doesn't really know what he wants. Maybe he only wants middle-class, surburanite, Grateful Dead "hippies" but lower-class, trailer-park, Kurt Kobain hippies can take a hike. Fast forward a bit, Kos says that he wants "young women". Good christ, now we really
know for damned sure Kos doesn't know what he wants. One moment, he wants women. The next, he doesn't. Then the next the moment he wants women ... but only certain types of women. I don't know what to make of such kabuki-ness considering the majority of his front page contributors are women.
Lastly, Kos makes the coup de grace with a demagogic appeal for "someone in a wheelchair" and I'm wondering ... can that someone be a woman? Can that someone be an out-of-work, out-of-shape, injured Ohio worker trying to make due with whatever Tom Noe and the other corruptive Republican jackoffs didn't filch from the states' workman's comp kitty? In the end, it doesn't matter because the person that could deliver Kos his wheelchair bound prop had allready been disqualifed from the casting call -- the ass-wiping, drool-catching, softhat-wearing nurses!
That paragraph just pisses me off because here's a guy -- along side Jerome -- who drug their knuckles through state after state after state in the research portion of their book and yet Kos apparently remains about as blind and confused as to the true face of the Democratic party (and America as a whole) as Wolf Blitzer would be on the goddamned set Blue's Clues
. You would think just ordinary people from all walks of life would be enough. But nope -- Kos is trolling for stereotypes
of people, and I let him have it.
Are you fucking serious, Moulitsas?!? I read the paragraph above and immediately noticed not what was left in but instead what has been conveniently left out and therefore left out of whatever the hell you think "looks" like the Democratic party. It does nothing more than remove all doubt to what I had merely suspected all along -- you're a fraud and an opportunist like all the rest.
With that, I hereby blow not only this popsicle stand but the Democratic Party, too, by I'll give you this much parting advice -- move your commerical shoot to New Orleans. Not only will you find all the stereotypes you'll need but you won't have to sugar-coat the casting call with the base alloy of foppish platitudes and hypocracy you demonstrate in the above paragraph. That garbage is typical of politicians.
And apparently typical of Markos Moulitsas because, reading between the lines of this and what Amanda uncovered just a few days ago, I get the feeling that Kos's answer to the kinds of people he conveniently left out of his casting call, and likewise out of whatever idea he's got as to the "look" of the Democratic Party, would be a defensive and derisive:
Create a blog. If there’s an audience, great. If there isn’t, not so great.
I say that because his elitist meritocratic view on blogs and success as a blogger seems to run right along side his own elitist meritocractic political views and personal success as a whole:
Besides, he suggests, if a Salvadoran war refugee—in his words, a "political nobody"—like him can make it on the Internet, there’s nothing stopping anyone else from doing the same.
There's the rub: Kos didn't make it himself -- the people made him and they can just as quickly unmake him.
Nevertheless, the underlying message seems clear -- all you working poor burger flippers and other softhat wearing people? Don't go running to Kos with your "pet-issues" for inclusion of the Democratic Party. Start a blog instead. Neo-feminists, lesbians, and other women without children? Start a blog ... wait ... you're allready did that. Shit! You're still not getting your "pet-issues" included into Kos's "look" of the Democratic Party no matter how much ass you kick in the Blogosphere. Hey, all you folks that don't wear business suits? Start a fuckin' blog. Just don't bother Kos. Oh, for all you people not in wheelchairs? You've been voted of Kossack Island -- start a fuckin' blog. Just don't bother Kos because Kos doesn't give a damn -- he just wants to "win elections" so you're nothing more than a means to an end to him. Part with a peice of your wallet, and your vote, then please sit down, know your place in his meritocracy, and shut the fuck up.
Little does Kos himself know that he may have already lost those elections
When the Bush administration discredits Old Testament religion and crony capitalism from the global political arena, when its moral bankruptcy reaches fruition in fiscal bankruptcy, there will be many Americans asking the "Why" questions they largely ignored during the Bush administration's assault on the people. There will be many Americans interested in knowing whom to blame for the utter failure of the modern world's first formal democracy. They must do so in order to avoid making the same mistakes again.
The first fingers pointing to blame will, of course, be directed at the obvious causes of America's fall from grace, i.e., the Old Testament conservative Republican party and the incompetence and corruption that the "born again" Bush administration has brought into American government. In discrediting religious capitalism, the Bush administration will have inadvertently accomplished what liberal capitalism could never have accomplished on its own. In the post-Bush era, there will no longer be opposition to original American values and ideals.
Under capitalism's dominion, neither liberal or conservative political factions can be seen as being particularly American. Both are inculcated with the mindless notions that have allowed capitalism's increasingly rapid rise to political dominion. In surviving capitalism's dominion, liberalism has had to accommodate so much greed-inspired nonsense, liberalism is as dead-lost as conservatism is dead-wrong.
The second fingers pointing to blame will, therefore, be directed at the enabling causes, i.e., the utter failure of a compromised liberal electorate to have any moral influence whatsoever on the direction America has been going since its takeover by corporate capitalism following World War II. Well-healed liberals remain entirely dependent on the capitalism that has made them wealthy and, at the same time, forced millions of working American parents into poverty.
Like wealthy conservatives, wealthy liberals see themselves as deserving of everything they have managed to acquire under capitalism. Their children deserve the very best educations in private schools, oftentimes spending more money per year to educate one child than millions of working parents can earn in a year ... Here is the subtle self-righteousness inculcated into well-healed people by capitalism's monied dreams and mindless demands. It is, self-evidently, not so much a problem of conservatives versus liberals. It is, as it always has been, more a problem of the "haves" versus the "have nots."
Gee, that sounds exactly what Sen. John Edwards was trying to communicate on the campaign trail. Alas, A-list bloggers such as Kos backed the wrong horse and we've been paying dearly for it ever since only to discover that Dr. Lower is indeed right -- liberalism/progressive is indeed dead lost. It has marched as far to the right as it possibly can and the way forward is to go backward -- back to basics. Back to core values and principals. Of course, with Kos's apparent elitist meritocratic and foolhardy views on politics and what "looks" like the Democratic Party marching in perfect lockstep to an elitist meritocratic foolhardy views on the blogopshere, it's no suprise the truth flew right over his head:
Well-healed liberals see conservatives as the bad guys and they see themselves as the good guys. The problem ... is that both sides are sinners in the eyes of Jefferson's God, i.e., in the eyes of the people. Both sides comprise the beautiful people who traditionally get what they want before the people get what they need.
In other words, both conservative and liberal capitalism survives at the expense of poor working people, a fact of capitalism that has stifled meaningful human progress in America for half a century. Liberal capitalism is still capitalism. It abides the ludicrous right wing notion that sharing and socialism are on the path to hell on earth. It implicitly champions the ludicrous notion that competition and capitalism's corruption are not on the path to hell on earth.
But we are
on the path of hell on Earth and have been on that path for quite some time. The division in the country grows wider, stretching nerves that are allready too taught and past the tolerance level that it is a miracle in and of itself that there isn't open rioting in the streets of America today. Any failure on Kos's part to be all-inclusive as to the look of the Democratic Party will be dangerous and tragic because
The American people are everything from grade-school dropouts and high-school dropouts to high school graduates, college graduates and university faculty, all living in the tiny worlds carved out for them by their response to and actions within greed-driven capitalism. It is called compartmentalization of the mind, and it has nothing to do with a creative and unifying endeavour.
Even creative and unifying endeavours as Crashing The Gate
for there'll be no gate crashing period as long as unenlightened, self-indulgent, and dismissive attitudes among A-list bloggers such as Kos remain so to such a degree that they bleed in among the public masses in general and that's why sometimes living life in tiny worlds -- tiny fucking bubbles -- requires a damned needle every now and then. It requires a deep-seeded conviction to cast a vote for self-less reasons (e.g. the common good) instead of selfish reasons (e.g. tax-cuts and free trade agreements). Amanda and Pam were right to take their respective needles to Markos's bubble but it won't pop. Markos's bubble will only answer to Markos's own needle. If that happens, the entire blogosphere will hear it.
Ever since Rev. Lowery recieved a massive standing ovation during the funeral of Coretta Scott King after putting the boots of truth to the attending President & First Lady
, the shit has hit the fan. First we had Kate O'Beirne kvetching
on how the funeral wasn't the right forum for Rev. Lowery to wax politics and now -- with a hat tip to Matt Stoller at MyDD
-- we find that the racists and bigots at RedState.Org
has gotten their sheets and hoods all in a big tizzy:
Why is it that those who participate in these funerals feel compelled to turn a solemn, religious event into a Def Comedy Jam spectacle of anti-Republican, anti-conservative boilerplate "known facts" and demands for handouts?
Yeah, that's code, alright -- code for, "Why can't these America-hatin' darkies know their roles, shut their mouths, and git their coon asses to the back of the bus?!?"
I also think I have a clearer understanding of why the culture of so many black Americans in this country is below what it should be and is capable of being.
Wow. Put this cross-burning rube to head Mehlman's Black Voter Outreach program. You know -- since he knows so much more about the potential of the black culture ever since that one time the batteries in his cable remote suddenly went dead on Soul Train
. Made him an immediate expert ...
Bush should take back New Orleans money and force these [assholes] to come begging for it.
This poltroonish shitheel's banjo needs to be taken away and never given back until he can pronounce "nuclear".
Since so many Democrats chose today's memorial service to act as ungracious swine, howzabout a filibuster proof Senate?
Nice to know that if I ever need glue to bind pages to a book, I can just squeeze Section9's head. And why not? It worked so well in the binding of Mein Kampf
You didn't see the Gipper's funeral turn into a GOP convention.
Two words: Schaivo, motherfucker!
I hope this fool is still enjoying those 700 Club
souvenir balloons with her braindead rictus on it, by the way.
What needs to be done here is a good old-fashioned protest that would make the soul of Ms. King proud as a peacock as she ascends to Heaven. First, we swipe that picture Aravosis has depicting all the black Republicans in Congress
, have Kinkos print of a bunch them on some good stock, staple them to a bunch of sticks, and then riverdance our happy asses over the GOP headquarters collectively chanting "Shut your fucking beak" over and over again. Completely spur-of-the-moment thing, too. Ignore any protest laws and regulations (why not -- if Bush can get away with ignoring laws, so can we) and just give 'em all a shitstorm.SHUT YOUR FUCKING BEAK!
Hey, you can also bring another sign -- Ken Mehlman and the words "Hey Ken!" on the front of it and on the back the words "This Republican Bigot Says, 'Stifle Yourself!'" underneath a picture of Archie Bunker. That'll work, too. Feel free to be creative with your signs. Oh and if MSNBC wants to air more outlandish bullshit from rightwing imbeciles and pedomorphic stooges, the crowd can just as easily hee-haw on over to Rockfeller Plaza. Plaster a sticker of the fugly-assed mug of Chris Matthews
over the white picture frame and viola!
Won't even have to change the chant for ol' Tweety.SHUT YOUR FUCKING BEAK!UPDATE:
Pam's got the low down
Yeah. Thought long about it and yeah. It's time for ol' Sy here to let his hair down. Time to reveal something about my happy ass that'll shock the fucktard status-quo Conservatives and Progressives into a big case of the vapors. Time for my America-hatin' leftist moonbat hide to break out with the ol' 10 degree driver.I don't support the troops.
There, I said it. It's finally off my chest.
Why don't I support the troops?
The following from the movie Shawshank Redemption
will spell it out for you:
Red: Rehabilitated? Well, Now let me see. You know, I don't have any idea what that means.
1967 Parole Hearings Man: Well, it means that you're ready to rejoin society.
Red: I know what you think it means, sonny. To me it's just a made up word; a politician's word. So young fellas like yourself can wear a suit and a tie, and have a job ... Rehabilitated? It's just a bullshit word. So you go on and stamp your form, sonny, and stop wasting my time.
To me, "support the troops" is just like "rehabilitated" to ol' Red in that movie. It's just a phrase djinned up craven politician freaks, rabid pundits without an original thought of their own, and Pretender Class American shitbags who feel the need to surround themselves with touchy-feely "Patriotically Correct" jargon each time they hop aboard the "Politically Correct" trolley for a little yellow-ribbon spin around Mr. Roger's Land Of Make Believe. It's a phrase they use to feel good about underpaying their live-in wage-slave sleep-farmers. It's a phrase they use to have something to talk about in their petty little sewing circles to silence the guilt booming into their head while scarfing down those $1,000 plate dinners a Katrina victim would kill for using a shank carved out of a ramen noodles brick and the flavoring packet as a Chinese throwing star:
Bobby Joe:"You suppawt da troops, Jimbob?!?"
Jimbob: "Yeap, I suppawt da troops. You support the troops, eh?"
Bobby Joe: "Ah-yuh, sure suppawt da troops!"
Jimbob:"Aight, we suppawt da troops, but what 'bout Cletus?!?"
Bobby Joe: "Ow, ya know Cletus suppawts the troops!"
Jimbob:: "Welp, we better ask 'im and make sure. Hay, Cletus, ya suppawt the troops?!?"
Cletus:: "Of ... *hic* ... coursh I shappawt da ... *hic* ... shappawt da troopsh. Lookit my SUV, muhfugger!"
So, no, I don't "support the troops" and a big fuck off to those that do.
What I do
support is human rights and there's nothing human or right about this clusterfuck in Iraq. There's nothing human or right about sending somebody's husband, wife, father, mother, or friend into this illegal-as-all-hell war without enough ammo and armor. There's nothing human or right about putting families concerned with the safety of their loved ones stuck in this war into a position where they must pay for extra armor to be shipped to their flesh and blood in exchange for the privlege to sleep just a tiny bit easier at night (although if Bush, the Republicans, and the Democrats would collectively choke to their very demise on their own $1,000 dinner, their grim faces may in fact turn into a quiet smile as their heads hit their pillow). Nothing human or right about taking hundreds of thousands of those in Americans in Iraq, the Iraqi people, and 300 Million tax-paying Americans for fucking granted.
Nothing human or right at all.
Sen. Durbin Takes "Pajamas" For Test Wear
DURBIN: I just don't understand why they can't make what modifications in the law might be necessary, but instead are claiming powers that go way beyond what the statute allows and way beyond what anyone voted for on September 14, 2001.
Q: But the attorney general says FISA allows intercepts that are otherwise authorized by statue. And he also says that that was authorized in the authorization of force act.
DURBIN: That's his argument. You've just repeated it.
Q: Well, why don't ... if you disagree with that argument, why don't you go on the floor and try to get a vote and have the Senate say whether or not the authorization of force - with all force necessary-
DURBIN: No, you've got it wrong. You've got it wrong. I don't know - who do you work for, incidentally?
Q: Powerline and Pajamas Media.
DURBIN: Jamas Media?
Q: Pajamas Media.
DURBIN: Pajama Media?
Q: And Powerline.
DURBIN: Okay, I'm sorry I wasn't familiar with your publication. But I will just tell you this: the argument is the Constitution spells out the powers of the president, as well as the powers of the legislative branch and the judicial branch. And statutes will be followed if, in fact, they put exclusive authority. That's was FISA does. It creates the word "�exclusive means" - exclusive authority. And they are reading more into it now than the statute obviously allows.
Q: But did you hear Gonzales say-
DURBIN: I'll check out Pajamaline, but I'm not familiar with your publication.
Hat Tips: Atrios
for the transcript
for the bean footage
Often Imitated - Never Duplicated
and Jessica at Feministing
tackles something that I find outrageous -- a group of T-Shirts that glorify rape and borderline pedophilia being offered by a website I won't mention here and market them as if they were funny. Now, I realize this is a dicey topic because of the idea of free speech and I'm also old enough to remember some of the outlandish things feminist groups did in the past to try to control people's langauge. But that's the point -- that shit is the past and good riddance.
The differences between today's feminists and the feminists from 1970s and 1980s are like night and day. Gone are the surburbanite, white, middle class, elitst, psycho hose beasts that blasted men as nothing more than knuckle dragging "Deadbeat Dad" neanderthals with burgeoning wallets all the while immitating the very narcissistic macho male behaviors as they donned tailored business suits and worked for nefarious companies that poisoned the environment and the children they claimed to love and support so much. The only place feminists like that exist anymore is within the confines of Washington D.C., the mainstream media, and Rush Limbaugh's own delusions brought on by Oxy withdrawal.
Today's feminists are those the former militant feminists left behind to fend for themselves -- poor, working class, women suffering from poor medical and mental health that find time in the day to give a damn about crack babies, give a damn about the worries and insecurities of women from minority groups, have rewarding relationships with husbands or their lesbian partners, and go so far as to stage compassionate hunger strikes in defense of the mythological "Deadbeat Dad"
our Government chases down so that the very system itself can turn statistics from collection agencies into a bi-partisan campaign for continued employment within the hallowed halls of the public office (here's a statistic I'm sure they'd love to keep away from their constituents -- the rate of suicide among "Deadbeat Dads" has skyrocketed to the point where they are twice as likely to kill themselves than a married man).
But one thing that keeps them all the same is the subject of rape and other forms of abuse. And it's should be no surprize that T-shirts like these that attempt to make a "joke" of rape through glorifying it to be no laughing matter whatsoever. Who would blame them? Certainly not I and this is the point of my post on this subject: Only one person has successfully made the idea of rape funny and he was George Carlin back in the late 1980s. He never touched the subject in such a way again throughout his career and I'll let him speak for himself now:
Oh, some people don't like you to talk like that. Some people would like to shut you up for those things. You know that - lots of people. Lots of groups in this country want to tell you how to talk. Tell you what you can't talk about. Or they'll say you can talk about things but you can't joke about it. They'll say that you can't joke about something because it's not funny. Comedians run into that shit all the time.
Like rape - they'll say, "You can't joke about rape! Rape is not funny!"
I say, "Fuck you! I think it's hilarious - how do ya like that?!?"
I can prove to you that rape can be funny -- picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd. See? Hey, how you think the came to name him 'Porky', eh?!? I know what you're gonna say: "Elmer was askin' for it. Elmer was coming on to Porky. Porky couldn't help himself, he got a hard-on, got horny, and lost control. He went out of his mind."
This context of rape is
funny. Why? Derrrrrrr. C'mon -- mentally picturing a famous cartoon character cornholing another famous cartoon character -- be it consential or not -- is a goddamned gutbuster. It's a fucking no-brainer. Nobody is going to give a rat's ass (except rightwing Christians) because they're not human. They're imaginary motherfuckers. Be-deep-be-deep-be-deep, dat's all, folks. Those who think this isn't funny? GET THEE TO A NUNNERY!
Headmaster Carlin continues, this time adding a human element to it:
Alot of men talk like that. Alot of men think like that and say it's the woman's fault. They want to blame the rape on the woman and say, "Eh, she had it coming. She was wearing a short skirt!" These men think women oughta go to prison for being cock-teasers. Don't seem fair to me. Don't seem right. But you can joke about it.
I believe you can joke about anything -- it all depends on how you construct the joke. What the exaggeration is. Because every joke needs at least one exaggeration. Every joke needs to have one thing to be waaaaaay out of purportion and I'll give you an example. You've seen news stories like this on TV or in the paper that says, "Some guy broke into a house, stole a lot of things, and while he was in there, he raped an 81-year-old woman." I thinking to myself, "Why?!? What the fuck kind of a social life does this guy have?!?"
I want to say to him:
Carlin: "Why did you do that?!?"
Rapist: "Weeellll, she was comin' on to me. We were dancing and I got horny! Hey, she was asking for it -- she had on a tight bathrobe!"
Carlin: "Jesus Christ! Be a little fuckin' selective next time, will ya?!?"
With a human element to rape such as that one, Carlin finds that proverbial line in comedy where society generally erects a sign that says, "DO NOT CROSS" ... and crosses it deliberately. That's his job -- a job he's been doing for 50 years now but the difference between Carlin and these T-shirts is that Carlin -- regardless of adding a human element to the context of rape that in all technicality could justify a bra-burning protest -- he crosses the line with the style of a irrepressible court jester. One can't help but laugh at the goofy bastard.
These T-shirts, on the other hand, lack style in their "joking" about rape and the human element they provide to the context of rape is simply inhuman -- inhuman because the "joke" is the glorification of rape to make it sound like it's should be socially acceptable. I see these shirts as nothing more than agitprop geared to further test the taught nerves of a society allready vastly divided enough into uncivilty. In the false guise of humor, these shirts contain loaded messages intending to piss people off just because they can. Nothing more -- nothing less.
I defend the notion of saying things via the Freedom of Speech for the purpose of pissing people off because I'm as partisan as they come. However, my partisanship on that token is limited to public discourse/debate, religion, economics, and politics. Why those limits? Because they emcompass so many different flavors and factions that even if you do say something for the expressed purpose of pissing people off, you will not succeed in pissing everyone
off because somebody somewhere will agree with your ass. You won't be alone. America is such a melting pot that the adage "you can't please everyone" is just as accurate is "you can't piss everyone off" but that's contingent on a lot of variables and possibilities. Rape isn't one of them. Rape shows no bias. Shows no prejudice. It doesn't care what or who you are.
Also, showing my own sick, wrong, and demented side, I have to admit -- I thought the same thing Carlin did when I read or heard of stories like this in the paper or on TV. My local newspaper prints local accidents and police reports including a list of people who got arrested (half of those motherfuckers I know personally and cackle like hell -- especially when it's one of my brothers). I'd read stories simular to that and think, "I know it's all different strokes for different folks but, sheesus, if you absolutely must have something old and dry to stick your dick in, go fuck a knot in a tree and leave your fellow neighbor's gramma out of it." Fucking a knot in a century old tree is just as sick and wrong ... but at least it's victimless (I don't count the splinters -- if you're desperate enough to fuck a tree, reap what you sow, asshole! They're part of the package).
Lastly, Headmaster Carlin pulls a surprize on us -- even though old school Feminists in the 80s were just as militant in trying to control language (and thus control thought) as the likes of political interest groups and religious shysters, Carlin was a friend and supporter of the underlying feminist philosophy:
I've got nothing against the Feminists. In fact, I agree with most of the feminist philosophy I have read. I agree that -- for the most part -- that men are vain, ignorant, greedy, brutal assholes who have just about ruined this planet all because they're afraid someone might have a bigger dick out there somewhere. Men are insecure about the size of their dicks and decide to kill one another over it ... So, I agree with that abstract -- that males have pushed the technology that just about has this planet in a stranglehold. Mother Earth raped again. Guess who? "Eh, she was askin' for it!!"
In the end, I agree with Carlin on the general abstract that anything can be made humorous, including rape, but it depends on the exaggerations. He covered those bases quite well. I also agree with him on feminism's core philosophy (only a man or group of men could concoct these sickening t-shirts). As for my friends in modern-day feminism, I share your contention in spades with these deplorable shirts but, in the end, it's the way 1st Amendment works. Sometimes, you'll like it. Sometimes, you won't. This is one of those times none of us do and I rather not see them being worn by people in America ...
On second thought, these shirts would make excellent prison garb.
Is It Just Me Or ...
... is Robert Turner an idiot? Not just any idiot - no, a full-blown "All Your Base Belong To Article II" rightwing wackaloon? As the associate director of the University of Virginia Law School, he just said on C-SPAN with Glenn Greenwald that basically President Bush can ignore FISA since "the Constitution is higher". If that's the case, Bush can ignore everything in the Constitution, everything in the Bill of Rights, every legal precendent set by SCOTUS. Everything. As long as His Tortureship decrees "that's annoying and this is cumbersome,", it's just tough titty said the kitty, eh? Am I way off base here?!?
UPDATE: Nawp, not off base -- Turner just said: "The Constitution gives all Presidents a level of great unconstrained power."
I'm officially hearing a distinct rattling sound eminating from the general vicinity of Tricky Dick's casket.
Who Would Jesus ...
Over at Shake's sandbox
, we've been discussing the idiocy of Laura Bush's
(and rightwing Christianity, in general) abstinence only gospel. In the comments, I submitted the following:
What needs to happen is for someone to ask "true believers" like Laura Bush and the fundementalist crowd a real barn-burning question: "If you honestly believe that a fetus is an innocent life and aborting it is akin to murder, then would you mind taking a guess as to how many female citizens of Sodom were allready pregant at the time God said KER-BLAM?!?!"
According to The Bible, God said He would not destroy that city as long as ONE righteous and innocent person remained. Guess what happened when Lot and his wife blew that popsicle stand? Not one innocent motherfucker at all in the city and God went postal on it. Therefore, if there were any pregant women within that city at the time ....... holy shit, God is an abortionist!
Not only would their bullshit arguments about abortion and abstinence crumble by the sheer weight of that logic but so would thier other bullshit arguments, particularly regarding homosexuality. It'll all fall apart like fucking dominoes in front of a world audience.
Realizing that there could be no recovery from such public embarrassment, the Christian Right would either have to adopt a pro-condoms, pro-choice, human rights agenda tossing fakers and frauds like Falwell, Robertson, etc. (at best) or choose between their obsession with Mammon/Money or their obsession with the crotch (at worst).
Either way, the results are a total and irrevocable excommunication from the geopolitical arena entirely ... and I'll say an AMEN to that!
It generated some responses from other resident Shakers:
Karmakin: The anti-women crowd won't even answer the miscarriage question...they're not going to tackle biblical genocide with a 100 foot pole.
amish451: usually the fundies answer with .."thats old testament God" as if that makes some difference to them who is found jeezus.
Sarah in Chitown: Regardless, mind you, I'm not particularly hopeful on the ability of the fundamentalist and/or evangelical mindset to respond well to logic, no matter how rational.
These guys are right on the money but that's the very point -- rightwing Christianity only ammounts to about 1/3rd of the total electorate. They can't do jack without suckering another 1/3rd of the electorate into their idiocy -- right and left of center moderates!
So, of course, the wingers won't touch biblical genocide with a 100 foot pole; of course, they won't respond well to logic no matter how rational. Those moderates will ... if one were to drive a wedge between them and the Tali-Born Again
because moderates at least retain the ability to think logically and apply critical analysis. Thus, if someone were to frame that question directly to the rightwing Christian fundies, those moderates will say, "Hmmm, this guy makes an interesting observation. What do you, Mr. Robertson, have to say in response?!?" Suddenly, the rightwingers don't have to answer to the person posing the original question -- they have to instead answer the moderates.
Who would Jesus waterboard?
Who would Jesus spy on without a warrant?
Who would Jesus bomb?
Oh, if those questions would've been asked sooner, we'd have either the Kerry Administration or Bush's impeachment proceedings right now.
However, Sarah disagreed with my initially question on a theological basis:
It is a good argument, but with one flaw unfortunately. If I am remembering my christian mythology correctly, it wasn't til Jesus died on the cross for "our" sins did newborns, or even fetuses, be classified as 'innocent' as they were all tainted with 'original sin'. It was only once you were baptised, accepted God as your lord, and gave up your sinful ways that you were forgiven and clean.
The flaw is the beauty of it, Sarah. From what you recall about Christian theology is going to be different from the recollections of someone else. The Bible -- this very book -- has been the direct cause of over 22,000 denominations of Christianity for a person to chose from. One book out of myriads. Stephen King, eat your heart out. Each of those 22,000 denominations have one thing in common -- accusing each other of developing their respective theology by "picking and choosing" which verses to believe and which ones to toss aside, and thus being "wrong".
Hoo, hoo, hoo, like they have a lot of room to talk. The hypocracy is astounding because you don't get 22,000 denonminations of anything without "picking and choosing" but the kicker is they can't accept others being different, thinking different, living their lives differently. Afterall, we all can read the Scriptures and can come to our own conclusions. Personally, I think I'm gonna "pick and choose", too and developing my own theology accordingly that (hopefully) will be much well versed in logic and common sense -- something I believe has been missing from mainstream Christian theology since about the 4th century. Hey, "Hooked on Semantics" worked for them -- it'll work for me!NOTE:
Blogger has been down all day, it's 5AM, and I'm sloshed -- time to ramble on!
I bring up legalism because Sarah states qualifiers for redemption: (1) baptized, (2) acceptance of God, (3) giving up sinful ways. Most likely because of the way she may been raised and whatnot. Legalism is something every denomination of Christianity is guilty of (and if they deny it, they're lying). Regarding these qualifers, I find no evidence of this actually being followed exactly to the letter by Jesus's many audiences throughout his 3 year ministry. In fact, I find the exact opposite -- quite a number of people actually botching it. When Jesus forgave one woman for her sins, He told her, "Go on and stop sinning." What did she do? Immediately sinned by blabbing about Jesus to the San Hedrin. Another time was when Jesus healed a blind man and told him, "Don't tell anyone I did this!" What did the blind man do? Ratted Jesus out to the San-Hedrin. Clearly a sin but that sin didn't cause him to revert to being a blind man again. Because of this, I'm led to beleive that the entire point of the Mosiac Law was to do two things: (1) teach us what sin is and (2) act as a roadmap to sin (yes, I'm aware Paul of Tarsis argues such a thing is "unthinkable" but we're getting to his "unthinkable" ass shortly).
After Jesus's death, we even witness the apostles themselves engage in sin -- Peter in the Book of Acts wouldn't eat with other Jews despite he himself being a Jew. Paul of Tarsis set him straight. Alas, too bad nobody was around to set Paul straight later when he practically told his protege Timothy, "Avoid girls, my boy! They gots cooties!"
I don't think Paul hated women. Quite the opposite: he looooooved women. Think about it: the proverbial thorn in Paul's side -- poontang addiction. Paul of Tarsis -- apostle by day; muff diver by night. I think he said that to Timothy because he himself was mollified by tits and ass. He couldn't control it, and definately couldn't afford to admit it (being an apostle and all). Advising Timothy and other churches to avoid giving equality to women despite Jesus's death shattering all that patriarchal bullshit from the Mosaic Law was, IMO, Paul's way of engaging in "projectionism" -- he erroneously (and sinfully) blamed women for being so sexy he couldn't keep his own dick out of them. He figured as long as they weren't around, everybody was better off.
Earth to Paul -- you're just as fallible as Pete. Quit pretending to know it all.
Also, the Book of Hebrews makes a compelling argument that water baptism is not a requirement for salvation. It argues in Chapters 9 and 10 that the blood of the lamb is "perfect" -- so perfect that it "sanctifies forever" those who are covered by it via Christ's sacficial death on the cross. I can't, however, find any Scripture that makes the same claim about mere water. Therefore, I must conclude water baptism has no bearing on salvation and it's only a public ritual -- nothing more, nothing less. Not only that, but if Jesus's blood is so perfect that it sanctifies people "forever", then I'm left to make the conclusion that once somebody is saved by the perfect blood of Jesus, they are always saved by the blood of Jesus. And if that is accurate then I believe the timing of sins are irrelevant. If the timing of sins are irrelevant, then everyone -- from creation to the "end of time" -- have been grafted into the blood of Jesus by proxy.
Why do I make that conclusion?
Because, if we're to believe the internal consistancy of Christian theology despite the differences and numbers of denominational flavors, this very redemptive plan by God (e.g. to become born into the world and die on the cross) was developed by Him before the foundation of world. Jesus had allready lived and died within God's own mind prior to creation itself, therefore, there's no logical reason for God not to include anyone born before Christ's physical birth into the blood of the lamb for total and irrevocable redemption since God isn't constrained by the element of time and He's not an unjust God.
Thus, I tend to think of the crufixion of Jesus as not strictly in the past tense but more in the aorist
tense -- it's an event that happened in the past (our past) but the ripples of that event transcend time itself to include humanity from past, present, and future; from creation itself to the prophetic "end of time". Afterall, what kind of God that's not constrained by time would concoct a redemptive salvation plan that is
constrained by time?!? Then again, the idea of a prophetic "end of time" is a contradiction of terms in this (or any) context. Bio-ethicist (and fellow Nascent Christian) Dr. Gerry Lower
explains it better than I can:
Are we "a nation in revolt against the modern world?" Or are we "a nation at the vanguard of the modern world?" Are we rapidly approaching the Biblical ideal of an "end of time," as the fundamentalist supporters of the Bush administration suppose? Or are we rapidly approaching a highly-networked global democracy honoring human rights, fairness and equality for all? The only adequate answer to these questions is "Yes."
The entire notion of an "end of time" is, in and of itself, an exercise in utter self-righteousness. Here we have a tiny handful of American fundamentalists (about one third of the U.S. electorate) who believe that they alone know that the entire world is coming to an end for all people (whether those people know about apocalyptic western religions or not). The notion of an "end of time" for all people and the world is an ideological stance that does not need sociopolitical analysis, it needs psychoanalysis.
With that, I'm gonna stop. Before these drunken musings need psychoanalysis, too.