Fred Barnes Lives in Opposite Land

Fred Barnes is the sort of pitiful little weenie whose nurples are probably still purple from junior high, so you have to figure he's got some issues. Check out the headline from his latest column:

Obama's Olympic Failure Will Test the Washington Press Corps

Okay, first of all, Obama did not have an "Olympic failure."
Dan O'Brien, now that was an Olympic failure.
All President Obama did was lobby for the Olympics to come to Chicago. The Olympics decided to go to Rio instead because, well, wouldn't you? The odds of Chicago being chosen were pretty slim. Even if the choice was made randomly, like pulling one city's name out of a hat, Chicago would have had only a 25% chance of being selected. But please, go ahead and make a big stupid deal out of it. Why not?

Now is the time for the mainstream media to show it’s not totally in President Obama’s pocket. The Washington press corps will never fault Obama for pushing hyper-liberal policies in a moderate-to-conservative country. Ideological criticism by the press is reserved for Republican presidents.

Fred makes a good point.

In Opposite Land.

I mean, seriously when has our press done an ideological critique of any president? No one in the major press can be bothered to do that much work or put that much thought into their writing. They just print the press releases.
And does Fred have any idea what hyper-liberal policies might look like? Or what a moderate-to-conservative country would be?

Here's a clue, Fred. The people of this supposedly right-leaning country favor a public option by about a 2/3 margin, depending on who's doing the polling. President Obama, if he were a "hyper-liberal" might say something like, "Fuck that, I'll do you one better, single-payer, bitchez!" But, no. He's saying that there might not even be a public option, his "reform" might be nothing but giveaways and subsidies for the insurance companies. So the situation we have here is a president who, on this issue anyway, is clearly to the right of the electorate.
And Fred, if the country is, as you say, moderate-to-conservative, how is it exactly that the people of this country voted for a democratic president and for Democratic majorities in both houses?

We know the world loves Obama. What the action by the International Olympic Committee demonstrates is that being loved isn’t the same as being influential or taken seriously or respected or feared

Yes, Obama should have made himself feared by the IOC. Teddy Roosevelt would have come to Copenhagen with ten Marine Corps divisions and threatened to invade Denmark if the Olympics were not immediately surrendered to Chicago.

If he can’t deliver on a vote of the IOC, does he really have the clout to pressure the mullahs in Iran into giving up their nuclear ambitions? Maybe not.

Hmm, Fred makes an interesting point.

In Opposite Land.

Here in the real world, it's doubtful that anyone would be able to dissuade the Iranian Mullahs from going nuclear. Bush had 8 years, and showed that he was willing to dive headlong into a prolonged, stupid, senseless bloodbath if he got a hint that someone was thinking about acquiring WMD's, and Iran started their nuke program on his watch. So did North Korea, but I digress.

Honestly, does Fred think that the Olympic Committee site-selection process is in any way relevant to nuclear arms negotiations. Ooh, maybe Iran got nukes because the US made such a poor showing in the World Cup!

Imagine if something like this occurred on a national security issue. Then the media would demand accountability. The Olympics issue is hardly as consequential, but that shouldn’t inhibit the press in seeking accountability.

No, it shouldn't.

In Opposite Land.

here in the real world, the "Olympics issue" is not merely "hardly as consequential," it is not consequential at all. really, other than the braying jackasses at Americans for Prosperity, who cares where the Olympics are held? Why the hell would you want the press wasting their time demanding accountability for the Olympics going to Rio?

As to your other point, when the biggest national security failure in our history occurred (I believe it was mid-September, oh 2001) did you see the press demanding accountability? I sure didn't. I saw members of the press falling over themselves trying to see who could give Bush the best blowjob.

Third, where was the charisma, the skill in persuading people to see things Obama’s way? The media has built Obama up as a communicator who’s the equal of Ronald Reagan

Yes, if only Barack Obama could come up with a snappy line like "Well. . ." or "there you go again." or "huh?"

The thriller in Copenhagen was not just a test of Obama. It’s a test of the media’s willingness to cover the president professionally and honestly when he stumbles. A love affair with a president should have its limits.

In Opposite Land, apparently, "professionally and honestly" means excoriating the president over any pathetic little phony miscue that piss-ants like Fred Barnes can gin up. The press is actually being professional and honest by not trying to turn this molehill into Mount fucking Everest.

Wait a minute, I just figured out where Opposite Land is:




Clearly, the words "Fair" and "Balanced" don't mean the same thing there than they do in the rest of the English-speaking world.

It's almost as if the Fox People see them as having the opposite meaning.

Ah, FOX News, where up is down, the grass is blue and the sky is green, and assclowns like Fred Barnes are to be taken seriously.

The NRCC totally gets it.

From the National Republican Congressional Committee's website:

So, see. They get that Americans don't trust them. They totally get that. And now they're here to earn back your trust. Well, not "earn" necessarily, but "regain" in whatever way they can.

So let's see, who do the republicans have problems with? Let's start with women! Women tend to vote Democratic a lot more than men do for some reason, something about wanting to have choices, or something? I think. Anyway, let's see how we can regain the trust of women. How about talking about Nancy Pelosi? She's a woman!

This is gonna go great!

“General Pelosi has no problem sacrificing her own credibility as the Obama administration and liberals in Congress attempt to walk back a strategy they strongly advocated just months ago,” said NRCC Communications Director Ken Spain. “Nancy Pelosi continues to make party politics a higher priority than our national security. Rather than listening to a four-star general’s assessments on Afghanistan, General Pelosi somehow believes she is better suited to craft our country’s military policy.”

Nooooo!! Not sarcasm! Goddammit Ken Spain, don't you know anything about appealing to potential voters? Say something sincere, quick!

If Nancy Pelosi’s failed economic policies are any indicator of the effect she may have on Afghanistan, taxpayers can only hope McChrystal is able to put her in her place.

Ouch! put her in her place? What the fuck? I may not know a lot about how the mind of the female voter operates, but I'm fairly sure it doesn't respond well to snide, insulting misogyny.

Oh, well. next week we'll try making inroads with Hispanics. Let's try calling them all "Cheech" and asking for their green cards!

God Gets a Copy Editor

The tongue-speaking, snake-handling, rapture-awaiting fanatics who brought us "Conservapedia" (to combat Wikipedia's obvious lefty bias) apparently took a little time off from thumping their Bibles and actually read a little of it. And they weren't happy with what they found.
"Hey, you know this Jesus fella we're always shouting about? Turns out he was kind of a hippie-dippie pinko. Always talking about loving your neighbor and helping the poor, and not judging people."
So when you discover that your political viewpoint is not really supported by the book you claim to follow, what do you do? Simple. Re-write the Bible.

No, Really!


They're calling it the Conservative Bible Project, and they are dead serious!

Here's their main beef:

As of 2009, there is no fully conservative translation of the Bible which satisfies the following ten guidelines

So, yeah. The idea is that in the 2000 or so years since the New testament was written, no one has ever written a good enough version. They keep portraying Jesus like this:

Instead of this:

This is how serious these guys are about fixing the Bible:

Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.

That's right. If Jesus says something that doesn't jibe with your right-wing world view, then obviously it's Jesus who's wrong. So remove that verse from the text.

Now this is fine if you are not a Christian. A non-Christian person could expect to find lots of things in the Bible he disagrees with and can assume that the Bible is wrong. That's perfectly rational. But you can't be a fundamentalist Bible-Thumper and then say, "well, Jesus was the Holy, infallible Son of God, but obviously he was way off on that one!" Either you worship the guy or you don't. If you believe that Jesus was just a rabbi who attracted a large following, then was killed by the Romans, then of course you can say, "Jesus was right about that but wrong about this," because of course, as a mere mortal, he would be wrong about a lot of things. But then you can't turn around and say, "Oh, and also, he was God."

At Luke 16:8, the NIV describes an enigmatic parable in which the "master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly." But is "shrewdly", which has connotations of dishonesty, the best term here? Being dishonestly shrewd is not an admirable trait.

The better conservative term, which became available only in 1851, is "resourceful". The manager was praised for being "resourceful", which is very different from dishonesty. Yet not even the ESV, which was published in 2001, contains a single use of the term "resourceful" in its entire translation of the Bible.

So it's not important which word is the more accurate translation. What matters is which word has a more conservative feel?

Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians.

For example, the conservative word "volunteer" is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.

This is just head-hurtingly stupid. First of all, it may surprise you to learn that, although no one really knows exactly when the Bible was written, it was definitely written prior to the Bolshevik Revolution. So the word "comrade" probably wasn't being used as a pro-Soviet term.And honestly, if you have a problem with the fact that Jesus talked a lot about workers or laborers, you should probably take it up with him. Here, you can borrow my time machine. Yes, I know it looks like an abandoned refrigerator, but trust me, just get in, close the door, and you'll be talking to Jesus in no time!

Anyway, these nut-jobs have a list of 10 guidelines they think a Biblical translation should follow:

Framework against Liberal Bias: providing a strong framework that enables a thought-for-thought translation without corruption by liberal bias

That doesn't really seem to mean anything. I think maybe it's just there so the list adds up to ten.

Not Emasculated: avoiding unisex, "gender inclusive" language, and other modern emasculation of Christianity

Now, I know that there has been at least one modern translation that uses gender-neutral language, but these geniuses said earlier that there is NO translation that meets these criteria. So I don't know what Bible they have been reading.

Not Dumbed Down: not dumbing down the reading level, or diluting the intellectual force and logic of Christianity; the NIV is written at only the 7th grade level

So number three seems reasonable, except when compared to number ten:

Prefer Conciseness over Liberal Wordiness: preferring conciseness to the liberal style of high word-to-substance ratio; avoid compound negatives and unnecessary ambiguities; prefer concise, consistent use of the word "Lord" rather than "Jehovah" or "Yahweh" or "Lord God."

So the translation should not be "dumbed down" (because God forbid a seventh-grader be able to understand your religious teachings) but also written as simply as possible. Good luck with that!

Utilize Powerful Conservative Terms: using powerful new conservative terms as they develop;^[4] defective translations use the word "comrade" three times as often as "volunteer"; similarly, updating words which have a change in meaning, such as "word", "peace", and "miracle".

Oh, and hey, while we're at it, let's replace the word "Jesus" with the word "Reagan," and instead of "disciples" let's call them "teabaggers."

Combat Harmful Addiction: combating addiction by using modern terms for it, such as "gamble" rather than "cast lots";^[5] using modern political terms, such as "register" rather than "enroll" for the census

Yeah, if the King James Version I grew up with had used the term "register" rather than "enroll," I probably would have grown up to be a FOX watching Republican.

Accept the Logic of Hell: applying logic with its full force and effect, as in not denying or downplaying the very real existence of Hell or the Devil.

because, you know most translations include the phrase "hey, don't worry about it, there's no hell or devil." Also, what exactly does logic have to do with the existence or non-existence of Hell? Logically, it would seem like if God loved his children, he probably wouldn't have a lake of fire to cast them into.

Express Free Market Parables; explaining the numerous economic parables with their full free-market meaning

I seem to recall that most of the parables had to do with people getting into Heaven or not getting in, but yeah, obviously that has to do with the free market!

Exclude Later-Inserted Liberal Passages: excluding the later-inserted liberal passages that are not authentic, such as the adulteress story

The adulteress story? Okay, I'll click on the link to see what story they're talking about.

Oh, the "whoever is without sin cast the first stone" story. Yeah, let's get rid of that story, then we can throw stones at people whenever we want!

Credit Open-Mindedness of Disciples: crediting open-mindedness, often found in youngsters like the eyewitnesses Mark and John, the authors of two of the Gospels

Since when is open-mindedness considered a positive virtue by these people? Don't open-minded people sometimes question the dogma they are given? Maybe the term has a different meaning in Insanistan.

So, to summarize, I think the point of the Conservative Bible Project is this:

The Bible would be a really good book, if we just took that Jesus guy out of it.

The Sad Descent of Rolling Stone

Right about here, something starts going wrong.


And it gets worse,


And worse,

And worse.


wow! what the hell happened to you, Rolling Stone?

It's Just Not a Party. . .

Until Janet Reno Rocks the Mic!

Picture from awkward family photos