You Might Want to Steer Clear of Oklahoma For a While

Actually, that's probably good advice any time of year, but especially now, because the Oklahoma Teabaggers are formin' a militia!

Now you'd think that Oklahoma would be the last place that militia activity would be welcomed, because of how it worked out last time

but Oklahoma teabagger psychos have, according to NPR, decided to form "a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty."(NPR)

But because this is Oklahoma, it gets even worse. Apparently, they have the support of some of Oklahoma's State Legislators!

Tea party movement leaders say they've discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force.

Oh, but not to worry, because

They say the unit would not resemble militia groups that have been raided for allegedly plotting attacks on law enforcement officers.

No, see, this group would only be plotting to fight the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, but not attacking law enforcement officers, so no big deal.

So, am I right in thinking that this is a little scary?

"Is it scary? It sure is," said tea party leader Al Gerhart of Oklahoma City, who heads an umbrella group of tea party factions called the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance. "But when do the states stop rolling over for the federal government?"

Oh, my God. I think my favorite part of all this is that this bunch of inbred rednecks think that they could actually mount a defense against the Federal government. The Federal government that controls the Army, The Navy, the Air Force and the Marines. A bunch of beer bellies with hunting rifles is going to stand up to this?

I know you teabaggers like to pretend that it's 1776 and you're the Minutemen or what have you, but this is 2010 and a bunch of yokels with muskets ain't gonna stand up to these redcoats.

But the militia talks reflect the frustration of some grass roots groups seeking new ways of fighting recent federal initiatives, such as the health reform plan, which requires all citizens to have health insurance.

That's what this is about, hmm? That's your line in the sand? "Goldurn it, I'll be dadgummed if any of them guv'mint fellers gonna make me have insurance. So's I kin see a doctor. I'd ruther be dead than have access to them fancy book-lernin' doctor eggheads!"

I'm beginning to see why Oklahomans are okay with James Inhofe representing them. Maybe he really is the smartest guy in the whole state.

Okay, I'm sure that Oklahoma is a perfectly nice place and probably has many fine, intelligent residents. But I have no plans to find out for myself.

Well, This is Creepy!

Noah Cyrus is Miley Cyrus's little sister. She is 10 years old. And she has some involvement with a clothing line calle "Ooh, La La Couture."



Because apparently the Cyrus family feels like they just haven't done enough yet to sexualize little girls.

Seriously, if you haven't gotten used to wearing fishnet stockings by the time you're ten, well you're just a prude!



The other little girl in the above photos is Noah's cousin, Emily Grace Reaves.
She is Nine.

Can someone please get these kids some parents?

Is This For Real?

I used to see David Brooks' column occasionally. The San Francisco Chronicle used to run it in syndication. So I know Brooks is kind of an idiot. But this is just unbelievable.

Monday, April 12, 2010

Redefining What It Means to Work Hard

By DAVID BROOKS AND GAIL COLLINS

In The Conversation, David Brooks and Gail Collins talk between columns every Wednesday.

Check this crap out! It reads like a parody.

David Brooks: Gail, to wrench me out of my fiscal funk last week, you allowed me to talk about sports and sex, in the person of Tiger Woods. I want you to know how much that helped.

Today, I’m going to start off talking about sports, but I promise, we’ll soon be discussing social class.

Oh, good! David Brooks' views on social class. For a minute, I thought you were going to talk about something interesting, like sports.

Gail Collins: David, this is not the first time somebody has promised that a discussion of sports is going to quickly evolve into something else. This is always a prelude to a discussion of sports. Sometimes with an occasional oblique reference to quantum physics or the ancient Greeks. But go ahead, I’m resigned.

David Brooks: O.K. My first subject is Barack Obama. He is without question the best basketball player ever in the White House, except for Taft, of course, who was the Charles Barkley of his day.

Ha ha ha!! Because they're both fat! Ha ha ha !!!

During the N.C.A.A. tournament Obama beat CBS’s basketball analyst Clark Kellogg in a game of P-O-T-U-S (the White House version of Horse). And then, being Obama, he said something very self-aware. He said that Kellogg (who was a genuine basketball star before going into broadcasting), only let him get close in the game because he didn’t realize that Obama might go on to win. That shows the president is wise to the wiles of flattery. Good for him.

So he's not stupid enough to think that he beat THIS GUY:

fair and square?

But then Monday he threw out the first pitch at Nationals Park. Atrocious. I don’t mean to be sexist, but the man throws like a Democrat.

Ha ha ha!! Because only girls are Democra. . . wait. That doesn't make sense.

The gap between his basketball ability and his baseball ability is so wide as to be a threat to the nation. The fact that he did not have the wisdom to bring in a team of pitching consultants to help with his delivery is a sign of dangerous hubris.

Or a sign of hos having more important "Predidenty" stuff to do.

Gail Collins: I don’t know if I’ve ever mentioned it but I hate hate hate all that White House basketball-buddy stuff.

Why can't he play golf like a real president?

Now, that's presidential!

Maybe I could demand that the president devote equal recreational attention to the national pastime. He could certainly find a trillion women in the administration who could play baseball at his level.

Ha ha ha , because girls are not good at basebal! ha ha ha !

David Brooks: A few hours after that atrocity of opening day, Duke went on to beat Butler for the national championship. Unlike 90 percent of America, I was rooting for Duke last night. This was widely cast as a class conflict — the upper crust Dukies against the humble Midwestern farm boys.

That is completely non-surprising. Almost everyone loves an underdog,
but oh, no. Not Brooks!

Gail Collins: I’m sorry, when the difference is one weensy basket, I’d say Duke won neither by privilege nor hard work but by sheer luck. But don’t let me interrupt your thought here. I detect the subtle and skillful transition to a larger non-sport point.

Please, God, let that be sarcasm!

David Brooks: Yes. I was going to say that for the first time in human history, rich people work longer hours than middle class or poor people. How do you construct a rich versus poor narrative when the rich are more industrious?

And there it is.

The trademark David Brooks Bullshit.

Just look how industrious these rich people are being:



Compared to these lazy bum poor folks:






Also, most "poor" or blue collar folks are paid by the hour. That means that even if you are willing and able to work more than your standard 40 hours a week or 8 hours a day, depending on what state you live in, your boss would have to approve overtime pay for you to work extra. Most companies are understandably reluctant to pay overtime, so not a lot of working class folks end up working more than 40/week.
Whereas executives are paid a salary, so they can spend as many hours "working" as they see fit. "Working" in this instance includes reading reports, 3-martini business lunches, watching powerpoint presentations, and hitting the executive gym.

Gail Collins: It may be true that the more hours you work on average, the wealthier you are likely to be. But while it’s harder to quantify, I’m pretty sure that the work gets more and more pleasant the higher up the ladder you climb. Forty hours in a chicken-plucking factory feels a lot longer than 60 hours managing a large corporation.

I'm not sure who Gail Collins is, but I don't think it would take a lot of money to get her to kick David Brooks in the crotch. Let's take up a collection!

David Brooks: Here’s the trickiest case of all. I don’t know if you saw Tara Parker-Pope’s piece in the Science section on Tuesday, but she reported on an interesting set of statistics. First, parents are spending more time with their kids today than in previous generations.

Actually, she said that the time parents spend with kids has risen "since the mid-nineties," not "previous generations." I'll guarantee you that my parents' generation spent a lot more time with their kids than today's parents (for better or worse) But why let facts get in the way?

Before 1995, mothers spent on average 12 hours a week with their children. By 2007, that number had leapt to 21.2 for college-educated moms and 15.9 hours for those with less education. I was fascinated by how parental time correlates to education. Is it possible that college-educated parents are spending more time passing down their advantages than other parents? Could it be that the rich replicate themselves by dint of hard work and parental attention, on top of all the other less worthy advantages?

Oh, I see. I'm not rich because my parents didn't deserve to have a rich son. If only they had worked harder. . .oh, wait. My parents worked their butts off, and spent tons of time with us. Enough time to make me and my siblings all a bit neurotic. So, shouldn't I be rich now?

If only I'd understood earlier how deserving the rich are!

Oh, they've worked so hard!

If only my parents would have had the foresight to pass a publishing empire on to me and my siblings! What the hell were they thinking?

How is the New York Times putting their imprimatur on this mess?

No wonder newspapers are dying!

Cheer Up, Craig Ferguson!

It's Caturday!

Who's Stupider? Tournament of Champions Edition

Recently, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin joined Sean Hannity on his crap show, which is sort of the equivalent of Stevie Ray Vaughn and Jimmy Page joining Jimi Hendrix on stage, if they all forgot to bring guitars and just sat around saying stupid shit that made no sense which, given the ammount of drugs ingested by these three, is actually fairly plausible.

But anyway, this meeting of superstars of stupid gives us the opportunity to play

Who's More Stupid?

Let's go to the transcript!

First up, Sean Hannity:

HANNITY: Alright. So I have to tell a funny story as we get started here. I'm interviewing Congresswoman Bachmann and I said to her — I said, Congresswoman, you know, you are the second most hated Republican woman in the country. We know who gets the most press. And she goes no, I would like to think of it as I'm the second most loved Republican woman in the country.

Okay, that story is not funny at all, so calling it a funny story is in itself stupid. Well done, Sean! Unfortunately, Ms. Bachmannis really the one who comes off looking stupid in your story, so that's a point for each of you!

Ms. Palin, you're up next. Care to comment on the "reload" controversy?

PALIN: Absolutely. It's a ginned up controversy I think by too many in the media making it sound like we're inciting violence. We are not. We want people to have their voices be — made known their arms are their votes this November.

All right, that assault on syntax is worth one point, and we're all tied up!

HANNITY: What do you think the reaction would be if things that were said about either of you were said about either Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama or Nancy Pelosi? Would there be a difference?

Well, it wasn't your turn, Sean, but that question was so profoundly stupid, that it earns you two points! As if horrible, hateful, offensive things weren't said about Ms. Clinton, Ms. Obama, and Ms. Pelosi just fucking constantly! That's going to be hard to top! Ms. Bachmann?

BACHMANN: I think you'd see some alternative cable stations blow up. I think — I think they'd be very, very upset about that. We all know that there's a double standard.

Ooh, judges can we accept that?
I'm being told that that statement was either a paranoid delusion, or an outright lie. Not stupid. Assuming that the audience is stupid, but not actually stupid in and of itself! Sorry!

You're up, Sean!

HANNITY: Is this about Western European socialism? Is this an appeasement mentality the president has adopted, Congresswoman?

Nicely played! European socialism and appeasement have nothing to do with each other, and neither are part of this healthcare bill! Impressively stupid question? Ladies, who has a stupid answer?

BACHMANN: Sure it is. And it's even more than that. This is the most radical president, the most radical speaker, the most radical Senate leader we have ever seen in the history of the country. And the American people are out-of-pocket rejecting everything that they're putting forward.

Well done! That is just wrong on so many counts, that it earned you a bonus idiocy point!
Ms. Palin?

PALIN: No. No, I don't think it's within him. I don't think it's within his DNA. He would have already done that through Obamacare. He would have moderated a little bit and compromise. He did not do that.

Ooh, I can't tell if you're actually stupid enough to believe what you just said or if you're aware that the opposite of that statement is actually true! I'm going to go ahead and give you the point based on your past record of obliviousness and willful ignorance!

You're up, Sean!

HANNITY: What do you think — what are the odds because I've spoken to a lot of people. For example, Karl Rove who I admire a lot and I think he's one of the greatest political analysts. He knows every district in the country.

Rove? Karl Rove who's been wrong about every election since 2004? Greatest political analysts? Now that's a stupid statement! You're back in the lead!

And now, the lightning round!

And the subject is National Security!

HANNITY: But the president apparently now is going out there and — report out today that there's no such thing as radical extremism.

And the president is saying that if there is a biological, chemical attack against the United States of America or any type of cyber attack, major cyber attack, if it is a country that is part of nonproliferation treaty, that America has taken nuclear weapons off the table.

Sorry, that's just a lie! No point. Ms Palin?

PALIN: It's unbelievable. Unbelievable. No administration in America's history would, I think, ever have considered such a step that we just found out that President Obama is supporting today.

Forgetting that Ronald Reagan negotiated the same sort of arms reduction treaties with Russia when they were still our sworn enemies? Spectacularly stupid, considering that Reagan is your hero and idol!

PALIN: I don't know but we miss Ronald Reagan who used to say when he would look at our enemies and say, no, you lose, we win.

Bonus point!

Congresswoman?

BACHMANN: Well, I just — I want to thank Governor Palin for breaking the barrier by being a woman as a vice president on the ticket.

Oh my God, that is amazingly stupid! Getting Sarah Palin mixed up with Geraldine Ferrarro? Absolutely pathetic! We have a winner! Michele Bachmann is the champion of stupid once again!

Um, Ms. Bachmann? That means you won.

And the people of Minnesota's Sixth District lose.