Everything That's Wrong With American Culture in One Headline

Brandi Glanville's Dad Said Her Oscar Dress Showed "Way Too Much Boob"

Us Weekly – Tue, Feb 26, 2013 12:40 PM PST




Oh, my God, so many, many things wrong here.

First: There is a headline about a person named "Brandi Glanville" and the name is just plopped in there like the US Weekly people just assume that you know who she is. Apparently, she is one of the loathsome "Real Housewives of some place or other," one of those despicable people who agree to act like drunken louts in front of TV cameras in exchange for being treated as tough they had accomplished something. And for some reason, this repugnant person is walking the red carpet at the Oscars. The Oscars!

 Granted, the Oscars have lots of problems, they're certainly bloated, overlong, self-congratulatory and boring as fuck, but they do still reward people who have reached some pinnacle of artistic achievement. How did a "real Housewife" get invited to the proceedings? Who knows? Well, probably a lot of people do, but I don't and I'm certainly not willing to invest the time to find out.

Secondly, Did someone really ask her father to comment on his daughter's bosoms? And instead of responding with "How dare you, sir? I will bid you good day! I Said Good Day!" this creep answered the question? "Yeah, I thought my daughter's boobs were a little over the top!" Apparently, attention-whore disorder runs in the family.

Okay, I made the mistake of reading a bit of the article, and it turns out that no one asked ol' dad about his daughter's breasts. He just decided to volunteer the information. On Twitter.
Now, he could have taken his daughter aside and said "Dear, don't you think that dress might be a bit too revealing?" or some such thing, but that would be stupid when you could just post that shit on Twitter so everyone can see!

And she proudly re-tweeted his message because obviously her "fans" are going to want to know what her dad thinks about her tits! Because our pop culture is irredeemably fucked up.

Brandi Glanville ✔ @BrandiGlanville

Hey brand, we looked for you on the oscars saw you in the dress. Beautiful dress but way too much boob looked like you fall out any time.Dad

10:21 PM - 25 Feb 13

37 Retweets 170 favorites

 

I imagine that when this tweet hit the tweeterverse, Jesus looked over at his father and asked "This? This is what you wanted me to save? For this I left Heaven?" and then they both wept.

Fuckin Texas, Man

Texas bans shooting immigrants from helicopters


This would seem to be the sort of thing that one would not have to bother banning because who would just open fire on people from a helicopter?

 

A hot-air balloon, sure. But a helicopter?

 

 

But, because this is Texas, of course some people have got shot from a helicopter. In fact, a couple of guys got shot dead from a helicopter
back in Oct, 2012.

A Texas state trooper who fired on a pickup truck from a helicopter during a deadly chase through the desert was trying to disable the vehicle and suspected it was being used to smuggle drugs, authorities said Friday.

The disclosure came a day after the incident left two illegal immigrants from Guatemala dead on an isolated gravel road near the town of La Joya, just north of the Mexico border.

 I suppose this is probably why they felt like they needed to ban this practice.

While announcing the new policy, Texas Department of Public Safety Director Steve McCraw insisted that the ban on aerial shootings had nothing to do with the October 2012 death of two Guatemalan immigrants, who were gunned down by troopers in helicopter while they were hiding in the back of a speeding pickup truck near La Joya.

Oh, right. It's Texas!
If they said that this new policy was a response to these two deaths, that would be a little too close to admitting that they were wrong. And admitting you're wrong is the first step on the slippery slope to apologizing. And in Te4xas, they live by the rule set forth by John Wayne's character in "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon,"

 

Never apologize! It's a sign of weakness!

 



“I’m convinced that now, from a helicopter platform, that we shouldn’t shoot unless being shot at, or unless someone is being shot at,” McCraw told the state House Committee on Appropriations.

Wait, what? Up 'til now, you didn't even have to be getting shot at to shoot someone from a helicopter? No one needed to be getting shot at? You could just shoot someone from a helicopter if, what, they looked suspicious? (Guatemalan)
Apparently! Because they are finding no fault whatsoever with last October's shooting.

“Last Friday, after a review of the policy and looking at all of the different things, and this is not a reflection of what happened there, I’m a firm believer they did exactly what they thought they needed to do.”

If you think that what you need to do when someone is speeding and might possibly have some sort of contraband in the back of the truck is to open fire, maybe your thought process is a bit flawed. Maybe you shouldn't be in a position of responsibility with the ability to make life-and-death decisions.
Granted, I'm no expert on law-enforcement techniques, but someone did ask a guy who is:

An expert on police chases said the decision to fire on the truck was "a reckless act" that served "no legitimate law enforcement purpose."
In 25 years following police pursuits, I hadn't seen a situation where an officer shot a speeding vehicle from a helicopter," said Geoffrey Alpert, professor of criminology at the University of South Carolina.

 

I know, but I'm lazy.

 

Such action would be reasonable only if "you know for sure the person driving the car deserves to die and that there are no other occupants."
In general, he said, law enforcement agencies allow the use of deadly force only when the car is being used as a weapon, not "just on a hunch," Alpert added



Well, that sort of wimpy soft-on-crime attitude might play in hippie South Carolina, but this is Texas, man! Fuckin' Texas!

Insane Laws Interspersed With Adorable Kittens

It's possible that some state Republicans are seeing the writing on the wall, realizing that they are fast becoming a permanent minority party and there's only so long you can keep Gerrymandering your way out of irrelevance. So, while they still have power, they're pulling out all the stops and putting the pedal to the metal towards Crazytown while they still have the chance. Here are a few of their more insane recent proposals, interspersed with adorable kittens to keep your heads from exploding.

 

You're welcome, humans!

First up, Montana crazy person Gary Marbut has proposed a "Sheriffs First" bill that would, in defiance of the Constitution, years of legal precedent and common sense, give local Sheriffs supremacy over Federal Law enforcement officers. Not only would FBI, ATF or Federal Marshalls have to get permission from the local yokel sheriff before arresting anyone, if they failed to do so the ensuing arrest would be considered kidnapping and the Federal agent could be arrested and charged.

Hey, who do you trust more?

Montana Bill Would Let Sheriffs Arrest FBI Agents for Arresting People

If Montana voters approve Gary Marbut's referendum in November 2014, any FBI agent who tries to arrest a Montanan for a federal crime could be arrested—and charged with kidnapping.

Marbut's "Sheriffs First" bill, which cleared a Montana state Senate committee last week, makes it a crime for a federal agent to take any law-enforcement steps without first getting permission from the county sheriff.

This might sound like the sort of whack-a-doo idea that would have no chance of passing, but. . .

The proposal already passed both houses of the Legislature once, in 2011, but was vetoed by then-Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat.

In Missouri, nutbag legislator Mike Leara has proposed a law which would make proposing a law against the law. Sounds complicated, but it isn't. In fact, the entire bill is only one sentence:

578.460. Any member of the general assembly who proposes a piece of legislation that further restricts the right of an individual to bear arms, as set forth under the second amendment of the Constitution of the United States, shall be guilty of a class D felony.

So if any member of the Missouri legislature were to propose, say, limiting magazine size or keeping assault weapons out of the hands of criminals, that legislator would himself become a criminal, but would probably still be able to own a small arsenal, because FREEDOMMMMMMMM!!!!!

I'm not sure what the legal theory is behind this, what interpretation of what law makes this lunatic think this law would stand up to the slightest legal scrutiny, but I think it's probably based on the legal precedent of Because I Want To v. Fuck You.




Not to be outdone, ironically named South Carolina State Senator Lee Bright has proposed a bill that would have high schools teach classes about guns.

I'm pretty sure this is not him, but Google image search seems to think she is.

 



Bright says he got the idea after hearing from older constituents who “remembered the days” when students could join a rifle team or learn about shooting during a school day. “We’ve got football, we’ve got basketball, and we’ve got baseball,” says Bright. “I think if they had a hunting team, it would be a great idea.

If there's any substantive difference between a basketball and a loaded rifle, I have yet to see it!












And then, of course, there's Kansas.

Kansas, where they want to pass a law requiring teachers to lie to their students.

Bill asks teachers to question climate change in class

HB2306 calls climate change 'scientific controversy'

House Bill 2306, introduced last week, says science classes must “provide information to students of scientific evidence which both supports and counters a scientific theory or hypothesis.”

Like gravity, or the Earth being round.

The bill says instruction about “scientific controversies” should be objective and include “both the strengths and weaknesses of such scientific theory or hypothesis.” The only controversy identified in the bill is “climate science.”

Because only 97% of scientist agree about global warming. That's hardly a consensus! Obviously both sides should get their viewpoints aired. Both the scientists funded by Exxon-Mobil and those funded by the Koch Brothers!





Well, that's enough for one night. I'm sure there are many more CRAAAAAAAZY laws being proposed by Republicans throughout this great land. There are damn sure more adorable kittens!

A perfectly reasonable fear.

Erik Rush Suspects Obama Will Classify Christians as 'Mentally Ill and Ship Them Off to an Asylum'

In the area of mental illness, given the administration’s totalitarian bent, this could mean an era of atrocities galore. . .
In the case of those who pose the most dire threat to Obama’s designs – Christians – these will certainly be targeted. After all, who more demonstrably epitomizes mental instability in the eyes of the Marxist atheist than those who commune with and rely upon that which is unseen?


Ironically, anyone who actually believes this should be classified as mentally ill and shipped off to an asylum.

The Tea Party Apologizes

(Via TPM)

Tea Party Group Apologizes To Karl Rove

Tea Party Patriots said that a fundraising email sent out Tuesday showing a manipulated photo of GOP operative Karl Rove wearing an S.S. uniform was a mistake that the organization "did not know about or approve." 

"We apologize to Mr. Rove. While we may have strong disagreements with Mr. Rove on the future of conservatism, we want to be clear this imagery is absolutely unacceptable and are working to ensure this type of mistake doesn’t happen again," read the statement.

Oh, of course. Of course that sort of thing can't be tolerated. You can't go around comparing people to Nazis.



Even though you have serious disagreements with Karl Rove, Nazi comparisons are really beyond the pale.



Obviously the Tea Party can't allow itself to be associated with people who make these sort of outrageous comparisons.




It really goes without saying that Nazi references are unacceptable. A classy organization like the Tea Party is obviously above that sort of thing.




Apology accepted!




And so on. . .




etc. . .