Wednesday, February 13, 2019

People who should shut the hell up about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

So we all know that Tehran Tom Cotton is a boob, right? And a terrible person too, but an absolute boob. Well, he was on fellow evil boob Hugh Hewitt's radio show yesterday and had this to say about AOC's attempt to keep Planet Earth habitable for humans:

Sen. Tom Cotton blasts 'Stalin-like' coverup of Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal FAQ

William Cummings

Because, I guess when Candace Owens is getting headlines for being cool with Hitler: the Early Years, you might as well display a similarly profound misunderstanding of Stalin.

Image result for stalin

You know nothing of my work!

WASHINGTON – Sen. Tom Cotton believes the news media engaged in a "Stalin-like" cover-up of a Green New Deal document produced by Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's office.
During a discussion of the ambitious environmental resolution introduced last week by the freshman New York congresswoman, Cotton pointed to a "frequently asked questions" explainer released, and then retracted, as part of the resolution's rollout.

You know, just like Stalin used to do!

"I understand the Democrats that proposed this immediately tried to retract that white paper that went along with their resolution," Cotton said. "And too many people in the media have been complicit in the Stalin-like or 1984 technique of disappearing it, sending it down the memory hole."

Ah. I see. And how did they do this? How did the media participate in the Orwellian rewriting of history?

Crickets GIF

Awkward The Simpsons GIF 

Oh, right. You're on right-wing radio! You don't have to substantiate your claims or give any supporting evidence or examples. You can just make any sort of outrageous claims you want, as long as they are positive about Trump or negative about any Democrats, and no one is ever going to ask any follow-up questions that might cause you to show that you're completely full of shit. What was I thinking?

Cotton said it was "remarkable" how many Democratic presidential candidates "you had leap onto a proposal that was going to confiscate every privately owned vehicle in America within a decade, and ban air travel so we could all drive or ride around on high-speed light rail, supposedly powered by unicorn tears." 

Oh, okay. So you clearly have a firm grasp of what is in the proposal. It's not like you're just making up ridiculous shit and pretending that that is what the bill says.

I mean, I guess this is the part you're prattling about:

Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public transit available to all, with goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle.
So, building lots of charging stations for electric cars. I guess that makes sense, because if you're going to seize all privately-owned cars, first you're going to want to provide a lot of infrastructure for those cars that will no longer be in use. That's logical.

And building so much high-speed rail that air travel becomes unnecessary is absolutely the same thing as banning air travel. You know, just like when automobiles started to become popular, horses were outlawed.

Image result for wild west outlaw on horse

Now only outlaws have horses.

I couldn't find the part about the unicorn tears, but isn't it just like these darn lefties to make unicorns cry?

Image result for unicorn crying gif

They're taking my car away!

Oh, and speaking of the Green New Deal, here's a good example of how utterly useless Amy Klobuchar is:

Most of the declared 2020 Democratic candidates have expressed support for the Green New Deal, including . . .  Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.
Klobuchar plans to vote for the resolution, but also implied she might not vote for it as written if it came to the Senate floor as "actual legislation."
"I see it as aspirational, I see it as a jump-start," she said in an interview on Fox News Tuesday. "So I would vote yes, but I would also – if it got down to the nitty-gritty of an actual legislation as opposed to, 'oh here’s some goals we have,' that would be different for me." 
Of course! She'll vote for it if it's meaningless. Ys, sure, you betcha! She's all for it if it's symbolic. If it's actually going to do something, well Geez, let's just hold up a minute there, now.
(yes, that's me trying to type in a Minnesota accent.)

And here's another person whose opinion on AOC is not wanted or needed and should just shut the hell up and be glad that we aren't building guillotines yet.

Bill Gates Has Some Harsh Words for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Tax Plan
 Chris Morris Tue, Feb 12 12:36 PM EST 
Oh, really. The guy who made a vast fortune with products everyone hates and tried to avoid using but can't has some thoughts about his tax rate? Oh, do go on! I'm sure we'd all love to hear the insights of a man whose mighty financial empire was built on ripping off Apple's OS (which, to be fair, Apple stole from Xerox) and forcing PC users everywhere to purchase it whether they want it or not.

Bill Gates says he’s fine with the idea of higher taxes for the rich, but plans like the one being championed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, which target the top income brackets, are too extreme—and could encourage the wealthy to hide their money in offshore accounts.

Image result for oh no gif cartoon

Oh my God! Could you imagine? Could you even picture a reality in which the wealthy hide their money in offshore accounts? How would that even work? There would have to be a country like Switzerland or the Cayman Islands that would allow the super-rich to hide their wealth in anonymous accounts somehow.

Gates, in an interview with The Verge, didn’t mention Ocasio-Cortez or her well-publicized tax proposal directly by name, but his focus was clear. While the Microsoft co-founder and world’s second richest man agreed the U.S. could be “more progressive,” he downplayed “extreme” proposals, such as the freshman representative’s plan to raise the top tax rate from 37% to 70%.

Oh my God, he's right! That would be so extreme! We haven't has a top rate that high since. . . Um, 1980. Wait, really? Well, that must have been an outlier, right? I mean before that, the top rate was, let's see in the 1940's it was . . . NINETY-FOUR PERCENT??? Oh, well, that was probably because we were fighting World War II. What about the Golden Age, the Pax Americana, the Eisenhower years? Ah, see. Once the crisis was over and we had a stable economy and a conservative president in office, the top marginal rate went back down to a sensible. . . NINETY-ONE PERCENT! You know, I'm starting to think maybe Bill Gates might possibly not know what the fuck he's talking aboiut and should shut the hell up or something.

Monday, February 11, 2019

Idiots in the News

Idiot #1: "Duck Commander" Phil Robertson.

An interview recently resurfaced on Fox Business Tuesday of Duck Dynasty star Phil Robertson criticizing support of universal health care.
Roberston believes that instead of medicine, people need more Jesus.
“I have eternal healthcare and it’s free,” Phil Robertson says.

Image result for phil robertson eyes

Okay, first of all how is this lunatic still being interviewed on tv? Weren't his 15 minutes up about 8 years ago? And honestly, I can not fathom what ever made anyone think that this ridiculous  kook was someone whose opinions on any subject should be sought out. I mean, he looks like the Ancient freaking Mariner. Have you seen those eyes? Those are the eyes of someone who has seen horrors that can not be described by words. These are the eyes of someone who took the brown acid and never completely made it all the way back. Those are the eyes of an H.P. Lovecraft character. If you saw this guy standing on the sidewalk, you'd cross the street to avoid him. And, I know you're not supposed to judge a book by its cover, but in this case, the cover is a damn good representation of what's on the pages.
I mean, seriously. Listen to this gibbering blather:

“We have been given — contrary to what Kamala Harris said — she says, ‘Elect me and everything’s free!'” Robertson complained. “‘Look! Everybody can have their own health care, the government is going to finance the whole thing! It’s not going to cost but $30 trillion. I’m offering you the greatest deal you ever had. Elect me and everything will be free!'”

Is there a complete sentence in there? Also, is he saying that Kamala Harris is claiming that healthcare will be free and also that it will cost $30 trillion? Because I'm not sure whether she's said either of those things, but she damn sure hasn't said both. Because she's not a lunatic.

“Kamala, I already have health care. It’s given to me by God. Eternal health care,” 

Eternal health care? Do you mean like in Heaven?

I already have health care..It’s given to me by God. Eternal health care. I’m guaranteed to be raised from the dead. I have life and immortality given to me by God through Jesus.”

Yep, I guess that is what he means. Well, that's great and all, but most of us would like to be able to see a doctor while we're still alive.

Also, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand all have come out in support of Medicare for All, yet he seems insanely laser-focused on Kamala Harris. I wonder why that is?

Youknowwhy Guess GIF - Youknowwhy Guess KenanThompson GIFs 

When host Neil Cavuto questioned him about the fact that people “get sick on Earth in human form,” Roberston said:
“The temporary reprieve is not worth it. I’m telling her, I have eternal health care and it’s free. Doctors can give you a little temporary reprieve, but they cannot save you from physical death. The doctors who treat you, they die, too.”

Oh my God. Is that true? Doctors are mortal? And despite the fact that they can cure many illnesses, they can not grant us immortality? Oh, well forget it, then. I mean what's the point? If we're just going to eventually die anyway, I might just as well let my cholesterol and blood sugar run amok and let's get it over with!

It is the only authentic response to the absurdity of life, nee'st-ce pas?

“A man that talks a lot like the president of the United States, he’s going to make some mistakes,” Robertson insisted. “I’m just saying the news media, according to Jesus, the evil one is the father of murder — that kind of fills in the blanks on why we’re such a murderous nation all the way down to killing our sons and daughters in our mothers’ wombs.”

Oh. Yeah.. . . Right. I totally remember that passage in the Bible where Jesus told his disciples about how the news media's lies would lead to a nation becoming a bunch of  child-murderers, and OH MY GOD YOU"RE FUCKING INSANE!

“And he’s the father of lies,” he added. “I’ve never seen the extent of this kind of lying coming out of the news media. I’ve never seen anything like it since I’ve been on the Earth.”
“But you don’t see it out of the president?” Cavuto pressed.
“I would say Donald Trump is not a liar,” Robertson remarked.

Related image
Not a liar?
Oh, dear lord.
Seriously, even FOX Business should have higher standards than this!

Idiot # 2: Whoever did this "study."


A new study that attempted to reveal the origins of lesbianism, is claiming that same-sex relationships in women only exist because it turns men on.
Published on Science Direct, the report by Menelaos Apostolou, a male professor at the University of Nicosia in Cyprus comes to the conclusion that lesbian and bisexual attraction all stems from male desire

Yeahhhhh, that makes sense. Because out of all the categories of people - hetero men, gay men, hetero women, bisexuals, etc. the one group who absolutely has the most interest in what turns straight men on would of course be lesbians!

“My argument in the paper is this: A considerable proportion of men desire same-sex attractions in women, and this is one possible reason why many women have such attractions,” Apostolou told Pink News.

Judge Judy Isn't Havin It GIF - JudgeJudy FacePalm Stressed GIFs

Ughhhh. I don't know why I do these things, but I clicked on the link to the study. Here is the abstract:

Prevalence studies indicate that about one in five women experience some degree of same-sex attraction. The evolutionary origins of such attraction are not well understood. Accordingly, this paper proposed a theoretical framework where, during the period of human evolution, same-sex attractions in women were under positive selection. The source of positive selection has been male preferences for opposite-sex sex partners who experienced same-sex attractions. 

A "theoretical framework" is a pretty fancy way of saying "baseless speculation."  I mean, he's hypothesizing that, at some points, cavemen were selecting mates by asking cavewomen whether they were "into girls." And if they said no, then these horny cavemen were just going "oh, well. Never mind. If you're not attracted to other cavewomen, then I guess there's really no point in having sexual intercourse with you. I mean where's the fun in that? If you aren't thinking about other women while we're doing it, I can't get off."  That's the scenario he's proposing, and from THAT, he builds his theory. He's just going to say "let's assume that there was a point in human development where all the troglodyte men were really horny for bisexual troglodyte ladies. Well, assuming that, then we can speculate about the biological imperative for preserving the bisexual gene in women."

see fatpeoplehate man file manscaping Shave beard,manscaping,file,man GIF

Yeah, but it isn't though.

This theoretical framework was used to generate four predictions that were tested in two online studies which employed a total of 1509 heterosexual participants.

Amy Poehler GIF - SNL SaturdayNightLove AmyPoehler GIFs

You didn't ask any lesbians? You had a question about lesbians and you asked zero lesbians? And this makes sense to you?

It was found that heterosexual women did not desire partners who experienced same-sex attractions, but a considerable proportion of heterosexual men desired partners who experienced same-sex attractions.

And yet. Gay men exist. And bisexual men. Even though male-on-male sexuality is not a "turn-on" for women. So right there, you've already proven that your cockamamie theory is total bullshit. I mean, you didn't need to prove it, the "theory" didn't pass the laugh test, but you've really proved it.

 In addition, it was found that men were more sexually excited than women by the same-sex infidelity of their partners, and they desired more than women, their opposite-sex partners to have sex with same-sex individuals. 

wtf idgi emma stone what trending GIF

Where did you find these men?

Did you. . . did you just interview characters from porno movies? Not the actors, but the characters? Did you have imaginary conversations with the pool boy and the pizza guy with extra sausage and imagine them saying "yeah, dude, I love it when my wife sleeps with other women. I would sure hate to be married to a faithful spouse!"

I can't read any further. It's so absurd. How in the hell did a "science" journal publish this claptrap?

Idiot # 3: Candace Owens.

Related image

“I actually don’t have any problems at all with the world ‘nationalism’,” Owens said,  “Whenever we say ‘nationalism,’ the first thing we think about — at least in America — is Hitler. He was a national socialist, but if Hitler just wanted to make Germany great and have things run well, OK, fine.”


No, Candace! Bad Candace! We don't say "OK" or "Fine" when we're talking about Hitler!

“The problem is, he had dreams outside of Germany,” Owens continued. “He wanted to globalize, 

Image result for oh my god gif

THAT's the problem? THAT was the problem. With HITLER? That he wanted to go global? Like, as long as he just wanted to murder millions of Jews, Roma, LGBTs, leftists, and the disabled in his own country, then - how did you say?. . . "ok, fine?"

How does this happen?
Youstart out by saying that you have no problem with nationalism, then you say "you know who was a good nationalist? Hitler!" Then you say "well, he was good until he stopped being just a nationalist and wanted to be a 'globalist.'"  I mean, don't you get paid to say things? Things that are supposed to bring people TO your side of the political divide? And you come up with "hey, we're on the same side as Hitler! You know, his early work, before he sold out and went all global."  Holy Christ!

Thursday, January 31, 2019

Empty Suit Throws Hat Into Ring

Has any political candidate ever been more of a non-entity that Howard Schultz?

Who does he think his constituency is? I consider myself reasonably well-informed, but until he announced his mindless quixotic presidential bid, I had no idea who he was. I had never heard the name Howard Schultz. Why would he think he could make the slightest ripple in the 2020 campaign?

Oh, right. Because he's a billionaire, so the media will fall all over themselves to build him up into some kind of legitimate statesman.

But seriously, he doesn't even have a platform. He has zero ideas of what he would want to do as president other than not tax billionaires.

Here's something he actually said on 60 Minutes as if it were a selling point:

 I don't care if you're a Democrat, independent, Libertarian, Republican. Bring me your ideas, and I will be an independent person who will embrace those ideas because I am not in any way in bed with a party.

So, I'm running for president - just tell me what you think would be good and I'll run with it! Even if your idea is the worst Libertarian drivel, I'm all ears!

He does, apparently, believe in something he calls "comprehensive tax reform," by which he means. . . you know, tax reform that is comprehensive.

Via NPR:

INSKEEP: President Obama's theory was that you reduce the deficit in small measure by raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans. President Trump's theory was that you reduce the deficit by cutting taxes on the wealthiest Americans. You're smiling. Which, if either of those, is true?

SCHULTZ: Can I say it in my own words?

INSKEEP: Please.

SCHULTZ: So we are in dire need of comprehensive tax reform, which would include a significant level of infrastructure developments.

INSKEEP: Is it safe to say that the wealthiest would have to pay more? Whatever the rates become, however the reform is structured?

SCHULTZ: What I would say is that we need comprehensive tax reform.

So he either doesn't know, or doesn't want to say, whether marginal tax rates would go up or down under his "reform," but rest assured, this "reform" is exactly what America so desperately needs at this time.

SCHULTZ: . . . I think there are a number of areas here that need to be addressed. And I'm not trying to dodge any question. I just feel like, you know, what we have today is an unfair system. 

Unfair in what way? Well, why does that matter? Look, whether you think that your tax burden is too high or too low, whether or not you think the wealthy and the corporations should be paying more or less, none of that matters. Because REFORM! COMPREHENSIVE!

. . . what we have today is an unfair system. However, when I see Elizabeth Warren come out with, you know, a ridiculous plan of taxing wealthy people a surtax of 2 percent 

You're right, Howard. 2% is ridiculous. Anything less than 10% is insufficient!

However, when I see Elizabeth Warren come out with, you know, a ridiculous plan of taxing wealthy people a surtax of 2 percent because it makes a good headline - or sends out a tweet when she knows for a fact that's it's not something that's ever going to be passed, this is what's wrong. 

Okay. Good. Now we're getting somewhere. We've identified the problem and that's a start. The problem with the United States tax code is. . . Elizabeth Warren tweeting! Wait. Are yiu sure aboiut that?

INSKEEP: But I'm just thinking, you've got trillion-dollar annual deficits now in good times. Getting that down calls for some specific, painful-sounding things - drastic cut in military spending, at a time when the United States is confronting China and Russia and who knows who else, changes to Medicare and Social Security, tax increases on somebody. Are you going to do that?

SCHULTZ: Well, you haven't talked about growth. So...

INSKEEP: You think you can grow your way out of a trillion-dollar deficit?

SCHULTZ: I don't think you can - no. No. I don't think you can grow your way out of a trillion dollars. 
Oh my God, then why did you bring it up?

But I - remember, I've been an entrepreneur for the last 40 years. I view things a little bit differently than, certainly, a traditional politician. And I have a 30-year-plus record of being able to solve complex problems in unique ways.

Oh for fuck sake. Maybe, MAYBE, you could have trotted this out prior to 2016. Maybe. Bur America has had two years now to see what happens when you elect a "billionaire" businessman with zero political experience to the highest office in the land. And I don't want to speak out of turn here, but we ain't too happy.

Also, that's your pitch? Imagine being two years into the tRump administration and thinking "Now's the time America is ready to gamble on an outsider businessman!"

You know, it seems like every election cycle there's at least one. There was Ross Perot, there was Steve Forbes, There was Hermann Cain, and Carly Fiorinna. And none of them came close, except Orange Julius Caesar who was the most famous businessman in the world and also a reality TV star that for some reason a lot of people found charismatic. (I will never understand why) But sure, the guy who used to run Starbucks, who is nowhere near a household name, and has zero charisma is the perfect candidate to win as a third party candidate!

Especially with specific, precise policy goals like this:

Oh, opportunities! Oh my God, I think you're on to something! No political candidate has ever offered vague, nebulous promises of "opportunity" before! in 2020, when you've got the candidate on one side of you shouting "Vote for me if you hate Mexicans and Muslims" and the other promising to give you a pay raise and let you go to the doctor when you're sick without losing your house, voters are sure to be drawn to the guy in the middle saying "ahem, I believe Americans should have opportunities."
Yeah, forget "policies and promises!" Those things don't help anyone. What we need is the amorphous gossamer of "OPPORTUNITIES!"

Also, I'm not sure Schultz really understand how American elections work.

Here he is on CBS This Morning:

"I think Republicans are looking for a home. If Republicans have a choice between a far left liberal progressive candidate on the Democratic side or President Trump, President Trump is going to get reelected.

Well, yeah. That would be true, if only Republicans voted. If you offer Republicans a choice between tRump and a progressive Democrat, of COURSE tRump would win. But, it may surprise you to learn that, desoite Republicans' best efforts, Democrats and Independents and Green Party and Libertarians and DSA are all allowed to vote in our elections. And according to the Washington Post:

More Americans now identify as independents than as members of either political party, according to June data from Gallup. In fact, only about a quarter of the country identifies as Republican, and about 3 in 10 identify as Democrats.
So, yes. In a two-candidate race in which one candidate is a Republican and the other is a Democrat, the Republican candidate would win the votes of that quarter of the electorate. Not sure how many of them would be peeled away by a moderate centrist who, up until 10 minutes ago, was a lifelong Democrat.

"We will be on the ballot in every state, all 50 states. And this is so vitally important. In the last presidential elections the only thing that matters is about eight states, battleground states that define the race, if I enter the race I'll be on the ballot of every state in all 50 states. Everyone's voice would matter."

Oh my God. Does he think that the reason the battleground states are so important is that major party candidates are not on the ballot in every state? Does he think that Hillary won in California because Trump wasn't on the CA ballot? Or that had there been another CEO douchebag on the ballot in California, that she wouldn't have won there?

Either way, the "battleground" states will still be the "battleground states." California  and New York will go Blue, Alabama an Mississippi will go Red whether any third party candidate is on the ballot or not. And Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado, etc will still be the states that are up for grabs.And those swing states would be the only states where Schultz could possibly hope to make any kind of a difference.  Is Schultz the only person in America who doesn't get this?

He also doesn't seem to understand the Democratic Party.

"I'm not a Democrat," Schultz told the 'Morning Joe' panel. "I don't affiliate myself with the Democrat Party who is so far left, who basically wants the government to take over health care, which we cannot afford, the government to give free college to everybody and the government to give everyone a job, which basically is $40 trillion on the balance sheet of $21.5 trillion. We can't afford it."

First of all, how many Democrats are pushing for single-payer healthcare? Last I heard, only about 1/3 of Senate Democrats were on board. Also, we absolutely can afford it. Why do you think Canada can but we can't. How come the U.K. can but we can't? Is this guy really so dense that he doesn't understand how Medicare-for-All would be funded? Maybe. Because here's what he had to say on the subject in his NPR interview:

SCHULTZ: Free Medicare for all, government-paid, free college for all - first of all, there's no free. I mean nothing is free.

Yeah. We know that. We're not stupid. We get that single-payer would be paid for with our tax dollars. We get it. We understand that, instead of having money taken out of our paycheck by Aetna or Blue Shield, we would have money taken out of our paycheck by Medicare. The difference is, we'd get a much better product.

And, I don't know whether Howard Schultz knows this, but state colleges used to be tuition-free. At least they were ion California. Before they elected Reagan governor.

Scrubs Mistake GIF - Scrubs Mistake Opera GIFs

(Joke stolen from Dana Gould)

So, this "raidcal" "leftist" idea of tuition-free college, is actually pretty retrp. It has been done and could certainly be done again. In fact, Bernie Sanders has aplan to pay for state colleges with a transaction tax on Wall Street. It would be pretty much completely painless for John Q. Taxpayer.

So, in conclusion, Howard Schultz has no ideas, no platform, and no policies. And he doesn't understand the Electoral College, how things get paid for, his opposition, or the zeitgeist.

Sure, Howard.
Sure ya are.

Tuesday, January 29, 2019

People Who Won't Go Away

So this guy is still around somehow.

You'd think after Mr HeMan Ladykiller was discovered to be a sad little manchild living LITERALLY in his mother's basement, he would have slunk shamefully away into well-deserved anonymity. But no. Apparently, there must still be some people who want to hear what this pathetic little cloaca of a man has to say. Even if it means listening to sex-talk from a man who refers to his genitalia as a "Benis?"

So, apparently this little simpleton has gotten the idea that if one was to indulge in anal intercourse with a woman, then that person would, I guess, just go "hey, butt-sex is fun. Who else has butts? Oh, right. Men do!" and then just become all gay or something? I don't know. But I guess he thought that this was an insight that needed to be shared with the world. Between long awkward sips of coffee. As you do when you've gained enlightenment that must be promulgated.

He states unequivocally that he has never had back-door sex. Well duh! I can't imagine he's ever had sex of any kind in any door. Who would let this self-impressed worm get anywhere near her boudoir?

He says he has had a couple of women ask him if he wanted to try it. I do believe that. I just assume that the offer was immediately followed by "cuz that costs extra."

He also seems to think that showering daily is something to brag about, not just a part of any normal person's routine. And that showering makes him not want to do butt sex, because that's where poop comes out. (No one tell him about what comes out of vaginas! Or maybe do tell him. Maybe that will be enough to put him off women entirely, for which the women in whatever town he lives in would probably be eternally grateful.)

Oh, and speaking of people who will not just go away, please for the love of God just go away:

Milo Yiannapoulos Loves Jesus, Hates Mammon, Is Stealing Gospel Songs Now

For some bizarre reason, Milo has recorded a Gospel song. And there is an accompanying video which, for as long as I could stand to watch, contains zero pictures of Jesus, or the Bible, or a church, but dozens and dozens of pictures and video clips of Milo making an ass of himself in various ways. There's Milo pretending that reporters are following him around. There's Milo pretending to beat up ethnic criminals. There's Milo standing behind an Israeli flag because, sure, I guess Yianopoulos is probably a Hebrew name. Then the first time the song mentions "a Savior" we see a photo of Milo kissing Donald Trump's star onm the Hollywood Walk of Fame. Subtle!
then he sings about how much he likes Jesus over a video of thong-clad women gyrating while wearing some sort of head-covering/veil type of thing because ooh, he's so edgy, he's really taking it to those Muslims and their concepts of modesty!

Wonkette fills us in on some of the background info:

If you are anything like me, your first thought upon listening to this was "Oh there is no way that Milo Yiannopoulis got that many black people to sing back-up for him." And if you did think that, you would not be wrong! Because the entire backing track was straight up lifted from the version of the song recorded by Kirk Franklin, the gospel singer who originally sang it.
God, why won't these halfwit assholes just go away?

Sunday, January 27, 2019

Weird Stories in the News

Weird story # 1:

Casey Hathaway, missing 3-year-old, found alive - CNN -

At first glance, this story doesn't really sound weird so much as uplifiting. This lost child has been found and returned to safety. That is a 100% positive story.

Here's where it gets weird:

Hundreds of people joined in the search to help find him, including some 600 volunteers and members of the FBI, NCIS and US Marine Corps.
After days of desperate searches for the little boy, crews on Thursday night responded to a report of a child crying in the woods and found Casey "about 40 to 50 yards in the woods, tangled up,"
Okay, the boy wandered out of his grandparents' back yard and into the woods. So you have a starting point to begin the search. And you have 600 people searching for this kid, presumably fanning out from the known starting point. And for what, two and a half days, no one can find him? And he only got 40 to 50 yards into the woods?
 And these weren't a bunch of random idiots doing the searching. There were FBI agents, the local sheriff's department, Marine Corps servicemebers and N.C.I.S.

Photo Credit: NCIS/CBS Image Acquired from CBS Press Express
One of these days, we're going to have to have a serious talk about NCIS. But not today.

How do 600 people spend 2 days looking for this kid who is shouting distance from the place he was last seen and not find him?

Now it gets weirder.

Casey is in good condition and resting, Dr. Nicole Check of the CarolinaEast Medical Center said Friday morning.

Casey’s aunt, Breanna Hathaway in a Facebook post said her nephew was “healthy, smiling and talking” following his return late Thursday.

Doctors at Carolina East Medical Center spent Thursday night examining Casey, who was left mostly uninjured from his time in the woods aside from a few scrapes and bruises. They said Friday that he was “in good condition and will be released later today or tomorrow,” WBTWreported.

He's fine. A three-year-old boy spent three nights alone in the woods, and he's fine?

And it's not like he was out there on warm summer evenings.

"What he survived out there -- temperatures in the 20s, low 20s, the rain, the downpour that almost put our search on a standstill," Craven County Sheriff Chip Hughes told ABC New Bern affiliate WCTI Friday morning. 

So, had he maybe spent some or most of this time indoors? Maybe in the home or the vehicle of an abductor? Nope!

"By his condition it was pretty obvious that he had been out there for the time," the sheriff told ABC News Friday.

The Craven County Sheriff's Office has not found any evidence of criminal activity surrounding the disappearance of a three-year-old who miraculously was found safe 55 hours later, according to a press release.
. . .  law enforcement, who are still unsure how Casey remained mostly healthy in the woods for two day without food or water.

So this is all pretty weird, right?
Ready for it to get weirder?

North Carolina 3-year-old Casey Hathaway says he hung out with a bear after he vanished from his grandmother's backyard

Okay, fine. He's three. three-year-olds have vivd imaginations. And being soaking wet in sub-freezing temperatures while dehydrated and hungry could make anyone imagine or dream or hallucinate some pretty wild stuff. 

But. . . 

If there's  no bear, how did the kid not freeze to death? A nice fluffy furry fuzzy bear could certainly keep you warm enough to survive. I honestly think the bear story is at least plausible. A mother bear might see a small human cub and instinctively want to care for and protect it. I've seen enough Animal Planet to know that stranger things have happened.

Kangaroo And Dog

Deer And Kitty

Cat And Lil’ Birds

You know what this is, right?

This is a superhero origin story.

There is virtually no way that this little boy does not grow up to fight crime as Grizzly Man or Bear Boy or something/

Image result for superhero bear

Or, if things go wrong, a supervillain.

You heard it here first. And if I were Marvel or DC, I would jump on the rights to this kid's story.

(There were a couple other weird stories, but this one ended up taking too much time.)