Brit Hume is Just Stupid

For some reason, I got this little article about Brit Hume in my inbox today:

Associated Press - 1/7/2010 5:50:00 AM

WASHINGTON - Fox News analyst Brit Hume says he doesn't regret urging Tiger Woods to become a Christian so the golfer can find forgiveness for marital infidelity.

Hume has been denounced for saying that he doesn't think the famous golfer's belief in Buddhism "offers the kind of forgiveness and redemption that is offered by the Christian faith."

Actually, Brit has been denounced for using his platform on a supposed news program to proselytize. No one is attacking his specific religious beliefs.
But why let that stop you? When you've got a good victim rant going, why let facts stand in the way?

The longtime journalist said he wasn't surprised that the remark aroused controversy. "If you're trying to find the two most explosive words in the English language, those two words are 'Jesus Christ,'" he stated.

Seriously? And what color is the sky in your world? You honestly think that "Jesus Christ" is an "explosive" word combination?

More explosive than "Mother Fucker?"
or "Child Molester?"
or "Anal Whore?"
or "Retarded Skinhead?"
or "Anti-Semitic Cocksucker?"
or "Kitten Rapist?"
or "Pederastic Chinaman?"
or Pre-emptive war?"

Seriously, you think that the two words that are going to attract the biggest controversey are "Jesus" and "Christ?" The name of the man that the majority of Americans believe is their savior? That's explosive?

I mean I could see where in certain contexts, like "Jesus Christ and Osama Bin Laden walk into a bar. . ." that could be pretty "explosive," but in the context of promoting Jesus? How is that going to get you into trouble?

Why do people like Brit Hume always have to portray themselves as some sort of oppressed minority? Why do they always have to play the victim? Do they really believe that the world is out to get them? Are they trying to use their phony victim status as a ploy to grab the moral high ground, or are they just nuts? Or just stupid?


P.S.

A little off subject, but look what happens if you try to get a synonym for "Pederast" from Thesaurus.Reference.com

No results found for pederast:

Did you mean priest?

I swear that's what came up! I did not fake that at all. But it did make me laugh. Then feel sad. Then laugh again.

Things people Should Stop Saying Immediately

As Re-enacted by adorable Baby Animals.




You know what, no. Don't put it that way. Don't put it any way, just answer the question.

If you start out your response to a simple question with "let me put it this way. . ." you might as well lead off with "I'm not going to give you a straight answer, instead, I'm going to say something that I, and only I, think is clever."

One of the first things I remember seeing on TV as a child was the 1976 Republican convention ( I know, explains a lot) Anyway, what I mainly remember was a reporter asking this weird old guy who he was voting for and the old guy said "Let me put it this way, if everyone voted the way I did, the president would be re-elected." I'm still somewhat scarred by that experience.



When someone says "I could care less" what they actually mean is the opposite that they, in fact couldn't care less. That is to say that they do not care at all, so caring any less than they already do would be impossible. When one says "I could care less" one implies that one does care at least a little making it possible to care less.




"Irregardless" is not a word. The word you are looking for is "regardless," as in "regardless of the adorableness of the tiger cub, I can not overlook his grammar."
The word "regardless" already means "without regard to." Adding the negative prefix "ir" just produces a double negative. It would be like saying "unhopeless" instead of "hopeless." If "unhopeless" were a word, it would mean something akin to "hopeful." If "irregardless" were an actual word, it would mean the opposite of the word "regardless."


Of course it is what it is! How could it not be? There is no scenario in which it is not what it is. Why is this even worth saying? It's the most meaningless 5 words in the English language. This sentence means nothing. I't just something people say when they want to sound philosophical but don't know how. It is what it is? What the fuck else would it be?

Exceptions do not prove rules. What this expression is intended to mean is that the exception "puts the rule to the proof," that is the exception tests the rule. If the rule is that cats always land on their feet, and you see a cat land in her back, that exception should lead you to question whether the rule is actually a rule. Is the cat on her back just an anomaly and cats nearly always land on their feet, or do a lot of cats land badly? This exception may require you to do further observations and/or testing to see whether the rule is correct, that is, if it can be proven to be a rule.

The misunderstanding seems to come from the idea that "there is an exception to every rule." The idea seems to be that if the previous notion is correct, that every rule has an exception, then in order for something to be considered a rule, it must show at least one exception, thereby proving itself to be the rule. A variation on this theme is the expression "rules were made to be broken." No. They weren't. Rules are often broken, but clearly the intent of the rule-maker was that the rule be followed. Your parents didn't set a ten O'clock curfew with the hope that you would stumble home drunk at 2am. Saying that rules were made to be broken is like saying cars were made to be crashed.

why is this disclaimer necessary? Have you not been honest up until this point in the conversation? Is this like "Simon Says," should I just assume that you're lying unless the sentence is preceded by "To be honest" or "honestly" or "I ain't gonna lie to ya"?

How about this, how about I never believe anything you say and you go away and don't talk to me anymore, hmm? How would that be?