I've heard of "Clinton Derangement Syndrome," but this is ridiculous!

Saw this story in Salon this afternoon:

Monday, Mar 2, 2015 01:46 PM EST

Can you spot the Monica Lewinsky reference hidden in Bill Clinton’s official portrait?

Naturally, I assumed this was going to be some kind of a joke, and I like a good Bill Clinton bj joke as much as the next 12-year-old, so I read on.

The Lewinsky scandal cast a proverbial shadow over Bill Clinton’s entire presidency — so, it makes some sense that, as we learn today, a literal shadow of Monica Lewinsky was secretly etched into Clinton’s official portrait as well.

No. No it doesn't. Not unless other presidential portraits have these sort of references. Does LBJ's official portrait reference the Gulf of Tonkin? Does Reagan's have an allusion to Iran-Contra? Pretty sure they don't.
So what is the painter's explanation for this?

Clinton was hard. I’ll tell you why. The reality is he’s probably the most famous liar of all time. 

Really?

The most famous?

The most famous liar ever?

He and his administration did some very good things, of course, but I could never get this Monica thing completely out of my mind and it is subtly incorporated in the painting.

You know what? You're hired to do a job. If you just can't get past the fact that the subject of your painting may have lied about having an extra-marital fling, if you're that much of a blue-nosed moralist, just decline the commission. If you're really that bothered by this whole thing just say "thanks for the offer, but since I don't think I am capable of painting this portrait without including a shabby cheap-shot, I will have to turn down this opportunity."
But if you take the money, just do the damn portrait and keep your moralizing to yourself.

By the way, when I did a Google search for the painter, one Mr. Nelson Shanks, the first thing that came up is a portrait of Marissa Tomei in the altogether.
The most prominent painting on his website is of Pope John Paull II who spent his career enabling child molesters, so I'm not sure why he suddenly has a moral objection to a man who had consensual sex with an adult woman.

And as to why he couldn't "get this Monica thing completely out of [his] mind," he offers a bit of insight into that:

If you look at the left-hand side of it there’s a mantle in the Oval Office and I put a shadow coming into the painting and it does two things. It actually literally represents a shadow from a blue dress that I had on a mannequin, that I had there while I was painting it, but not when he was there. 

 

Jeezus. . . You kept a blue dress on a mannequin in youir line of sight as you were painting, and yet you somehow just couldn't seem to forget about the Lewinsky thing? That's just like how I just can't seem to stop thinking about pizza whenever I am eating pizza while watching a dvd of  "Mystic Pizza" and crank-calling Papa John's.
You really can't say that you just couldn't get her out of your mind when you were going out of your way to constantly remind yourself of her. I'm surprised you didn't jerk off on the dress for authenticity. Actually, I have no reason to think you didn't do that. But let's assume you didn't.
No, fuck it, I'm going to assume you did, because now I can't get that image out of my mind. If ever i paint a portrait of you, I will have no choice but to make it a painting of you jerking off onto a blue dress on a mannequin. 

It is also a bit of a metaphor in that it represents a shadow on the office he held, or on him.

You know what, fuck you, you ridiculous little prig. The Lewinsky "scandal" did not cas a shadow on the Clinton presidency. (The Defense of Marriage Act did, NAFTA did, etc) It cast a shadow on the Gingrich Republicans, exposing them as petty, spiteful children who would do anything to try to hurt their opponents, no matter how futile or absurd.
No one looks back at the Clinton years and says "good economy, peace and prosperity, but dammit, that blowjob just ruined everything!" The only people who care are people who already hated Bill Clinton and this just gave them a way to rationalize their hatred.

Submitted Without Comment

(SOURCE)

 

I know, I know, it's wrong to laugh. But I find it amusing when someone gets some poetic justice. I call it Karmedy.

People at CPAC are smart, know things

Ahahahaha!! Not really.
It's that most wonderful time of the year. Spring is just around the corner, pitchers and catchers have reported, and the circus sideshow-cum-white power rally known as CPAC is here to horrify entertain us all.
Let's take a look at what some of the GOP's shining stars have said so far at this year's "put a tinfoil hat on over your Klan hood" party.

First up: Marco Rubio

Speaking before the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Maryland, Rubio told radio and TV host Sean Hannity that “if we wanted to defeat them militarily, we could do it. [Obama] doesn’t want to upset Iran.” 

 Right. Obama isn't doing enough "militarily" to defeat ISIS. It's not as if he's dropped a few thousand bombs on them or anything. And obviously, this is because Iran, ruled by Shia clerics, would hust really hate it if this Suni terrorist group were to be defeated! You know, that terrorist group who goes around killing anyone they consider to be infidels like, say, Shiites.

Although, I suppose it's a lot to ask for Rubio to have known that Iran and ISIS were completely opposed. It's not as if  a quick Google search for "Iran + ISIS" yields a bunch of headlines like

Iran will do what it takes to fight ISIS - CNN.com

War with Isis: Iran joins 'Great Satan's' fight against militants ...

www.independent.co.uk ›ISIS claims responsibility for attack on Iranian ambassador residence

Iran Joins ISIS Fight  thediplomat.com/2014/12/iran-joins-isis-fight/

And there's no reason to think he should be some sort of expert on foreign affairs just because he's a  member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and a member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.




 Next up: Reality TV "star," fake swampbilly and actual scumbag Phil Robertson.

"You lose your religion, according to John Adams, and there goes your morality. We're almost there," Robertson said. "I hate to admit I got my facts from the CDC the day before yesterday, 110 million, 110 million Americans now have a sexually transmitted illness."

 "There is a penalty to be paid from what the beatniks, and it morphed into the hippies -- you say, what do you call the 110 million with the sexually transmitted illness -- it is the revenge of the hippies! Sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll have come back to haunt us in a bad way."

Right, because before the "beatniks" and the hippies, it's not like American GIs were coming home from the war with "the clap."



  It's not as if famous men from Christopher Columbus to Napolean Bonaparte died of syphilis. It's not as if the disease known as "smallpox" was given that name to distinguish it from "the great pox," aka syphilis.

 

Hmm, when exactly did the "beatniks" appear? And the hippies? Because surely, cases must have spiked right around that time, right?

Also, too, funny how you cherry-pick this John Adams quote to represent the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. You could just as easily have used one from Thomas Jefferson, like "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes"

 So, what's your solution to this problem of std's? Wait, let me guess. . . increased condom usage? Better sex education?
Haha, of course not. Don't be silly!

"You want a godly, biblical, medically safe option? One man, one woman, married for life," he said. 
 You're disease free and she's disease free, you marry, you keep your sex right there. You won't get sick from a sexually transmitted disease." 

Interesting. I assume that must be how you conducted yourself throughout your life, right?


Of course!

And here I thought it was a good idea to take advice about sexual morality froma guy who looks like he just raped Ned Beatty!  
,,,

Why do they keep talking about medicine?

Every time one of these conservative know-nothings opens his or her mouth to opine on any medical issue, the nation's collective IQ drops another point. Here are three examples from just the last couple of days.
Bear in mind, these three people have all been placed in positions of responsibility by the voters.


Let's begin with a State Assemblywoman from Nevada:

[Nevada Assemblywoman Michele] Fiore, who is also CEO of a healthcare company, told listeners to her weekly radio show on Saturday, that she will soon introduce a “terminally ill bill,” to allow more non-FDA-approved treatments for those diagnosed as having terminal illnesses.

Okay. So far, so good. If people who are terminally ill, who have nothing to lose, want to try experimental treatments that may not be totally safe, I say why not? I remember when ACT UP  was agitating for this very thing, saying that people who were dying of AIDS didn't have time to wait for the necessary trials and if these new AIDS drugs turned out to be actually harmful, how much worse could it be for someone who is already dying? So I'd say so far not nutty at all.

As first reported by Jon Ralston, Fiore told listeners: “If you have cancer, which I believe is a fungus. . .

 

Wait, WHAT? A fungus?
Cancer is not a fungus.
Regardless of whether you believe it to be a fungus or not, cancer and fungus are two different things.

 

I also believe that  ice cream is a beverage and Babe Ruth was an elm tree!

(And that this is a decent hairstyle.)

“If you have cancer, which I believe is a fungus, and we can put a pic line into your body and we’re flushing, let’s say, salt water, sodium cardonate [sic], through that line, and flushing out the fungus… These are some procedures that are not FDA-approved in America that are very inexpensive, cost-effective.” 

  

Yeah, running salt water into your veins, that would be inexpensive. But so is jumping off the roof yelling "whee! I'm Superman!" Inexpensiveness is not really that great a criterion for judging medical procedures.

Fiore added that Nevada is already “the capital of entertainment” and this bill could help “make it the medical capital of the world as well.”

The medical capital.
The world's capital of medicine.
Because of this shameless quackery?
Yeah, fuck you, Mayo Clinic, I bet you never thought to cure deadly diseases with condiments!


Next up, Idaho State Representative Vito Barbieri:

Idaho lawmaker asks if woman can swallow camera for gynecological exam before medical abortion

• Article by: KIMBERLEE KRUESI , Associated Press
• Updated: February 24, 2015 - 9:30 AM

The question Monday from Republican state Rep. Vito Barbieri came as the House State Affairs Committee heard nearly three hours of testimony on a bill that would ban doctors from prescribing abortion-inducing medication through telemedicine

Dr. Julie Madsen, a physician who said she has provided various telemedicine services in Idaho, was testifying in opposition to the bill. She said some colonoscopy patients may swallow a small device to give doctors a closer look at parts of their colon.
"Can this same procedure then be done in a pregnancy? Swallowing a camera and helping the doctor determine what the situation is?" Barbieri asked.
Madsen replied that would be impossible because swallowed pills do not end up in the vagina.

"Oh, really?" asked Barbieir, "then how does the baby get into the lady's tummy?"


Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go make some laws about the female anatomy!


And staying in the Idaho Statehouse, let's hear from Representative Christy Perry

 

Shown here brandishing a deadly weapon in order to demonstrate how mature and responsible she is.

Idaho Republican backs faith-healer parents: ‘If I want to let my child be with God, why is that wrong?’

Travis Gettys
24 Feb 2015 at 11:17 ET   

Okay, that can't possibly be what she meant, right? That's gotta be out of context or something.

Right?

 

An Idaho Republican said a proposed ban on faith-healing could violate the religious rights of her constituents – many of whom eschew medical care for themselves and their families.
“They have a clear understanding of what the role of government should be – (and it) isn’t how to tell me how to live my life,” said state Rep. Christy Perry (R-Nampa).

Oh, God. Fucking Libertarians. Here we go. . .

But Perry insists Followers of Christ have a First Amendment right to deny medical care to their children on religious grounds, arguing that they are perhaps more comfortable confronting death.

“Children do die,” Perry said. “I’m not trying to sound callous, but (reformers) want to act as if death is an anomaly. But it’s not — it’s a way of life.”

Holy fuck! Yes, death is a part of life, obviously. But for children? You're okay with death happening to children? When it could be prevented? Yes, some children are going to die because they have some horrible incurable disease, or get in a car crash, or get seen in public with their parents and just, like, die of embarrassment! But when you could prevent that death? And you choose not to? You're a monster!

Perry said faith healers are caring parents who simply trust in God’s will.
“They are comforted by the fact that they know their child is in heaven,” Perry said. “If I want to let my child be with God, why is that wrong?”

  

Why is that wrong?

Seriously?

Maybe because when you say "let your child be with God," you don't mean "let him attend church services" or "let her join a convent." You mean "let your child die." How are you okay with this?

Maybe because you have no right to choose death for anyone else, not even your child. Especially not your child!

You get a lot of options as a parent. You can choose what religion to brig your kids up in. You can choose whether to raise them as liberals or conservatives. You're even allowed to raise them as Dodger fans, at least until the child abuse laws are updated. But you don't get to decide "fuck it, let 'em die."

You don't get to withhold life-saving medical treatment from a child and then sing "Circle of Life" from the Lion King as if the child's death was just an inevitable act of nature. And you don't get to choose to allow your child to die needlessly and then blame God.

If you want to refuse medicine for yourself, that's your right. You're an adult. And if you would rather go to a con-artist in a revival tent than a doctor in a hospital, more power to you. Thin the herd!



 But you don't get to inflict your idiotic beliefs on a helpless child who can't possibly give informed consent.

It's really a fascinating thing, this Republican/conservative view on parental rights and choices.
When it looks like this

choice = murder, and the "child" must be protected at all costs. Pass as many laws as it takes to protect this "child" from its mother's choices!
But once they look like this

 
then hey, it's your choice. You wanna let the kid die? Totally up to you. Far be it from the government to curtail your choices of how to deal with your child.

Well, I guess I shoulda seen this coming

I'm always a day behind watching The Walking Dead, because I'm too old to stay up that late in a school night. But last night, when I saw the two new characters Aaron and Eric


all I thought was "are these going to be good guys or bad guys? 'Cuz they seem a little too good to be true, especially that Aaron, no one's that nice, especially after a punch in the face."

Somehow, I didn't think "oh, this is going to be controversial!" Mainly because I was under the impression that this was 2015, not 1955.



Well, wrong again, Professor!



Because today I started seeing this kind of shit on the interwebs:





Oh, fer fuck sake!
This is what might get you to turn off The Walking Dead?
Like, not this:




That won't get you reaching for the remote, but this:

is too disturbing for you?







Oh, that's gross?
This is not too off-putting for you

But two dudes kissing is where you draw the line?

Right. Gross! Why can't they just go back to showing guys killing each other?



Now that's wholesomE!




Oh, that's lame?
No, Hershel was lame.
Because Rick chopped his fucking leg off with a fucking axe.


But that didn't disturb you, two dudes in love, that disturbs you. Wow!














Seriously, these people are perfectly fine watching re-animated corpses feast on the flesh of the living as they scream in pain and terror. They're fine with a little girl stabbing her little sister to death and then Carol putting a fucking bullet in her head.



They're fans of a show featuring murders, cannibalism, domestic violence, dismemberment, children dying and heads being sliced in two with a samurai sword, but the sight of two men kissing, that their delicate sensibilities just can't handle. How pathetic is that?