Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Michele Bachmann (Yes, Again!)

She's baaaaaack!

Because she can't go more than a few days without saying something head-hurtingly stupid, Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-Loonesota) has this to say about swine flu:

I find it interesting that it was back in the 1970s that the swine flu broke out then under Democrat President Jimmy Carter. And I'm not blaming this on President Obama, I just think it is an interesting coincidence.”

Really? You really think that's interesting? Come on, Bachman! You used to put some thought into your loony conspiracy theories. When you talked about FEMA building concentration camps in the desert, I at least felt like you were putting some effort into it. Now it feels like you're not even trying anymore. Where's the creativity?

Now, if you want something interesting, here's a little-known historical fact (by which I mean everyone but Michele Bachmann knows this) - The swine flu outbreak of the 1970's was in 1976. Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, which means he took office in 1977. So there is still a touch of the me'lange of crazy and stupid that only Ms. Bachmann can provide. Kudos to you, Ms. Bachmann, and congratulations, voters of Minnesota's 6th district!

I wish I could take credit for this picture! I found it

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Music Break!

Here's Atlanta's own Gringo Star performing "All Y'All" at Atlanta's own Corndogorama!
In case there was still any doubt about Atlanta being the music capitol of the world.

Michelle Malkin

For some reason, there are some people who take Michelle Malkin seriously.
Really. I know, it's hard to believe!

Here's her latest nugget of insanity:

Of course: Swine flu is all the evil GOP’s fault!

By Michelle Malkin • April 27, 2009 11:39 AM

Well, it didn’t take long for partisan Democrats to blame the swine flu outbreak on the Republican Party.

Um, no.
No one is blaming Republicans for the swine flu. Really. No one thinks that the Republican Party is clever enough to manufacture a new virus and spread it to the U.S. via Mexico.
Seriously, just stop now.

Here’s the line: Since House Republicans all opposed the trillion-dollar-porkulus, which included funding for pandemic preparations, it’s all. Our. Fault.

No. Not really.

No, really:

Ok, what are you basing this on? Oh, this article from The Nation you linked to? Well. let's see what it has to say.

When House Appropriations Committee chairman David Obey, the Wisconsin Democrat who has long championed investment in pandemic preparation, included roughly $900 million for that purpose in this year's emergency stimulus bill, he was ridiculed by conservative operatives and congressional Republicans.

Well, that is true.

Famously, Maine Senator Collins, the supposedly moderate Republican who demanded cuts in health care spending in exchange for her support of a watered-down version of the stimulus, fumed about the pandemic funding: "Does it belong in this bill? Should we have $870 million in this bill? No, we should not."

Ok, still waiting for the part where the Republicans are blamed.

Senate Democratic leaders bowed to Collins in the process of crafting their chamber's version of the stimulus. In doing so, they eliminated more than 80 percent of the modest amount of money that had been allocated for pandemic preparedness -- and all of the money that would have helped emergency services.

Sounds like they're blaming the Democrats.

Senate Democrats bent to her demands. That makes them, at the very least, complicit in the weakening of what needed to be a muscular plan.

The bottom line is that there were no heroes in either party on the Senate side of the ugly process that ridiculed and then eliminated pandemic preparedness funding.

Would you like to treat this witness as hostile?

But former White House political czar Karl Rove and key congressional Republicans — led by Maine Senator Susan Collins — aggressively attacked the notion that there was a connection between pandemic preparation and economic recovery.

Should we just stop here? Are you sure you don't want to withdraw your objection?
Ok, let's see if Rove and company were right. Let's see if there is, in fact, no connection between a flu outbreak and economic recovery.

On Monday, the question began to be answered, as Associated Press reported -- under the headline: "World Markets Struck By Swine Flu Fears" -- that: "World stock markets fell Monday as investors worried that a deadly outbreak of swine flu in Mexico could go global and derail any global economic recovery."

Before U.S. markets opened, the Wall Street Journal reported: "U.S. stock futures fell sharply Monday as the outbreak of deadly swine flu stoked fears that a possible recovery in the global economy could be derailed."

The Dow, after several weeks of surging, finished the day down 51 points, with the Journal headlining a late-day report: "US Stocks Down On Continued Swine Flu Fears."

OOOOOOO, I'm sorry, the correct answer was "Yes, there is a connection." We would also have accepted "hell yes," "obviously," or "Duh!" We have some lovely parting gifts for you: Turtle Wax, a year's supply of shut the fuck up, and Rice A Roni, the San Francisco treat!" (*)Only funny to those of us born prior to 1970

So do you have anything to add before skulking off to well deserved ignominy?

So any natural disaster or bio-catastrophe that comes along, for which fiscal conservatives refused to support funding for in an economic recovery package, will now be all. Our. Fault.

No. Look, we just covered this. No one is blaming the Republicans. People are just pointing out how ironically wrong they were on this issue. And by the way, your syntax is atrocious. See you in Summer School.

Monday, April 27, 2009

One News Now

Why, oh why do I keep opening the e-mails that these people keep sending me? Am I just a masochist, or do I need material for this blog that badly?

The latest dispatch from Insanistan opens with this headline:

Napolitano should go, say lawmakers

Then the first sentence in the article reveals that it is just one lawmaker:

A Texas congressman is calling on President Obama to fire Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano

John Carter, R-TX

And why would this guy want Ms Napolitano fired?
for defending the now infamous DHS report on "right-wing extremists."
Ah, of course!

Of course, only in Wingnuttia is this report considered "infamous" or in need of defending.

Here's a handy time-saver. How about, if you're a Congressman from Texas, we just go ahead and assume that you are baboon-ass crazy, and we'll all just ignore you? How would that be? Because, seriously, you have no fuckin' idea what you're talking about.

Then, there's this:

Right of conscience at issue in Iowa

which talks about the "Alliance Defense Fund," a group which is encouraging public officials in Iowa to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples based on the long-standing legal principle that you don't have to follow the law if you really don't want to.

The Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) is moving to protect the freedom-of-conscience rights of county officials in Iowa.

By court edict, homosexual "marriage" has been legalized in The Hawkeye State. Attorney Douglas Napier of ADF has helped develop a policy to protect county employees who will not provide marriage licenses on the basis of conscience.

"The Iowa attorney general [Tom Miller] has issued a misleading statement to county recorders around the state, putting a heavy-handed threat against them [and] saying if they don't issue same-sex marriage licenses, he may bring legal action against them," Napier explains. "Mr. Miller conveniently omitted any discussion of their rights of conscience or the recorders' duty to protect the rights of their employees."

Yes, Mr. Miller conveniently omitted any discussion of imaginary rights, like my right to disregard the posted speed limit because driving 55 sucks, or my right to punch Douglas Napier in the nose because, you know, c'mon! The guy's a douche!

They then go on to this :

Obama Middle East policy shows change in values
Okay, so this seems reasonable. An analysis of the differences between Bush's cowboy foreign policy and Obama's sanity. Go on. . . .

Barack Obama's obvious comfort level with leaders of un-free countries shouldn't surprise anyone. He is not only our first black president. He is also our first president who doesn't like the free country he was elected to lead and feels his job is to change it.

Ohhhh, how did i not see this coming? This is going to be about Chavez, isn't it?

Obama's cordial encounter with Venezuelan thug Hugo Chavez, his bow of deference in London to the Saudi Arabian king, are extensions of behavior we have always seen on the black left. Jesse Jackson openly embraced Chavez, as well as having maintained relations with the likes of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi and Yasser Arafat.

Okay, first of all, Venezuela is not an "un-free country." (un-free? really? Jeez, don't you own a thesaurus?) Venezuela is what you call a Democracy. The voters of Venezuela elected Hugo Chavez. You don't have to like him, but no matter how much you un-like him, that won't make him any less legitimate.

Jesse Jackson openly embraced Chavez, as well as having maintained relations with the likes of Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi and Yasser Arafat.

This should be kept in mind as our president now makes his own effort to bring peace to the Middle East.

Riiiiiight, we should definitely keep in mind what Jesse Jackson may have done, since that would, of course, be a predictor of what Obama might do? or something? I guess? Um, I gotta tellyou, correspondent Star Parker, you're sounding just a teensy bit racist here.

Really? Wow!

Ok, never mind about the whole racist thing, heheheh!

It should be clear to anyone conscious and watching that central to Obama's Middle East strategy is to disabuse the long-held notion that there exists a "special relationship" between the United States and Israel.

The Arab world has always resented the U.S.-Israel connection and has felt that because of this, Americans would never be an honest broker in Arab-Israeli negotiations.
Gee, where would they get that idea?

Obama is out to change this. His first hundred days, from his very first television interview -- given to an Arab television network -- have focused on warming up our relations with Islamic nations and cooling down our Israeli ones.

Ooohhh, sure would hate to have warm relations with Islamic nations. It's so much more fun to be in constant conflict!

The great American writer Mark Twain visited the Holy Land in 1867 before Jews made their miraculous return to their ancient homeland. He reported that there was nothing there. "Palestine is desolate and unlovely."

And as everyone knows, if a land is "unlovely," it's free for the taking! Help yourself to Oklahoma!

There's more, but I just don't have the strength.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Music Break!

And now, to wash the taste of "and we danced" out of your ears ( I know that makes no sense) The daily irritant is proud to present another reason why Atlanta, GA is the music capitol of the world, SNOWDEN! and their song Anti-Anti

I don't think this is the "official" video, I assume it was made by some fans, but the sound quality is good. And if you're the kind of fella that likes to watch pretty girls dancing, well, this video is for you even without sound!

The Worst Song I Heard at Work This Week

I knew I had given out the title to "life Less Ordinary" too soon! Because today I heard "And We Danced" by The Hooters, which is apparently a band made up of busty white-trash waitresses. Just take a quick gander at some of the lyrics these wordsmiths have produced:
(and yes, it took two of them to craft this gem)

She was a bebop baby on a hard day's night
She was hanging on Johnny, he was holding on tight

Bebop baby? really? What the hell does that mean? She was the daughter of Charlie Parker?

Oh, and the Beatles reference, nice! You know, it was clever when Lennon & McCartney coined the phrase "hard day's night" because no one had used it before. You're just repeating a phrase from vastly superior songwriters. No one's impressed. Ooh! maybe I'll entitle my next post "Johnny B. Goode Along the Watchtower Cries Mary!" What craftsmanship!

But hold on, it gets worse! I know! Hard to believe, right?

And we danced
Like a wave on the ocean, romanced

Ok, two things. First, "danced like a wave on the ocean." What would that even look like?

Cuz I'm picturing this:

But more importantly, there's the "romanced" thing. What, did you just tack that word on to the end of the line to make a rhyme? That's the laziest bit of songwriting I've ever seen. You couldn't come up with anything else?
Here, try this:

and we danced
like a couple of pervs with no pants.

or this:

and we danced
like a boil that needs to be lanced.

or even:

and we danced
we were both surgically enhanced.

Oh wait, one more!

and we danced
like a miniature collie from France.

Ok, that took me like five minutes, so there's no excuse for just throwing a random word on the end of the line.
What if other writers took your approach, Hooters?
just imagine. . . . . .

But soft, what light through yonder window breaks?
It is the east, and Juliet is the sun, Pancakes!

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate. Hey!

Let me tell you about the very rich.
They are not like you and I, Bitch!

Then there's the rest of the chorus:

We were liars in love and we danced
Swept away for a moment by chance

(there, see! It's not that hard to find a legitimate rhyme)
And we danced and danced and danced

Oh, come on! Really?
You are the laziest songwriters ever.

Ooh, wait! One More!

And we danced
I had paid for her time in advance.

ok, last one

and we danced
I had borrowed a suit from Jim Nantz.

oh, I just thought of one more

and we danced
she ignored my political rants.

and we danced
to the tune of gregorian chants.

and we danced
she wanted to waltz, but I can't.

Ok, that's it.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

More Fake Outrage

We touched on the kerfuffle over the Dept. of Homeland Security report on Domestic terror threats (here) but I'd like to go back to that subject, since it fits in with another recent post(here).

The feigned outrage coming from the right over this report is astounding. It would be funny if it weren't so sad. Here, for example, is a posting by someone named Warner Todd Huston, at the website ""

Alright all you right-wing thugs out there, now that tax day is over, Obama and his pals are saying you are dangerous and that your tax protests are an act of revolution. It is amusing that they’ve never said that with the many riots past and present spread by left-wingers in the US — after all little “right-wing” violence has ever been seen here —
but there you have it. It’s all YOU.

Riiiiiiight, very little "right-wing" violence has been seen in this country. Unless you count the Oklahoma City bombing, The Olympic Park bombing, the "Army of God," the Knoxville church shooting,The Phineas Priesthood's string of bank robberies, the murder of Matthew Shepard, the "order" murdering Alan Berg, Benjamin Nathaniel Smith's 3-day shooting rampage, the Aryan Nations, the World Church of the Creator, various and sundry militia groups, dozens of arsons and bombings at abortion clinics, assorted plots to assassinate Obama, etc.But other than that, no, not really much right-wing violence. Do go on. . . .

And on the heels of that Democrat take over we have seen the frightening abuse of policing powers evinced by Obama’s Department of Homeland Security that has released a so-called threat assessment that seems to assume that every American that holds center right views is dangerous and declaring that nearly half the electorate is prone to “right-wing terrorism.”

Wow, where to begin? You must know damn well that the report says nothing of the kind. Or do you really think that the report's references to "white supremacist and violent anti-government groups" refers to "anyone with center-right views"? You can't be that stupid. Of course you aren't. I see what you're doing here. Trying to make it seem like conservatives are this powerless, oppressed minority being scapegoated by the big, bad democrats, even though this report was commissioned by the Bush Administration, and does not accuse mainstream conservatives of being allied with extremist groups. You're the one who is implying that garden-variety conservatives are akin to these violent fringe groups.
You're counting on the high probability that no one in your audience has actually read the report, which is a pretty safe bet.
Look, the report is only 10 pages long, andi's pretty large type with lots of bullet points (no pun intended). One page is the title and DHS logo, one page is the table of contents, so it's really only 8 pages to read. Look. You can read it right here.

Here is radio talker Laura Ingraham on the O'Reilly show:

we have a Department of Homeland Security issuing reports about right-wing extremism and equating, you know, domestic terrorism with, you know,
the vets coming home from Iraq

No, you know, they certainly do not, you know, equate soldiers with terrorists. What they do say, is that" rightwing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans" (as happened with Tim McVeigh when he returned from the first Gulf War.)

And here's loudmouth buffoon sean Hannity speaking to a "tea party" in Atlanta:

if you have a pro-life bumper sticker on your car, if you have an 'America is overtaxed' bumper sticker, if you have a pro-Second Amendment bumper sticker, they're viewing you potentially as a radical.

"The Homeland Security Department is probably checking the license plates of everybody here."

Oh, good one sean! because these nuts aren't already paranoid enough, now tell them they're being stalked by the DHS! Brilliant! What could possibly go wrong with stoking the fires of misdirected fear and rage?

And here's loonie without portfolio Michelle Malkin:

"[W]hat we're seeing is -- what we've seen with this White House and with the Department of Homeland Security smearing of people who are patriots."

Now, she may actually be pignorant (TM) enough to believe this absurd hogwash, but even she probably knows that this is bullshit. Hell, even a few people at FOX realize this!

Here's an exchange between FOX host Shepard Smith and correspondent Catherine Herridge in which FOX producers forgot to edit out the sanity:

On Studio B, Smith asked Herridge of the report, "Who and what are they talking about here? I mean, this isn't about these -- this isn't about tea party folks." Herridge replied:

No, essentially the driver in these intelligence assessments is the downturn in the economy. What they say essentially is that when people have less money, they're out of work, they feel disenfranchised, this is fertile ground for groups on the left as well as groups on the right.

And you remember from reporting on this show, Shep, that even at the end of last year, prior to the inauguration, the Homeland Security Department under the Bush administration was sounding the alarm about the potential for right-wing groups to act, specifically because of the economy, and also because America was going to have its first African-American president.

Herridge also noted that the DHS report "does talk specifically about returning veterans as being sort of attractive targets for these groups, because they've got the weapons training and they may feel somewhat disenfranchised when they return for a variety of returns." She later added, referring to the reports on left-wing and right-wing extremists, "I would point out that both of these assessments, Shep, were commissioned under the Bush administration. It takes some time to do them. They only came out after he had left office."

So just knock it off with the phony outrage already. Your faux-righteous indignation is not fooling anyone with the sense God gave a mule; but as you know, ther are a lot of people out there who don't have any damn sense and they're your core audience. Why do you need to drive these simpletons even crazier? Don't you know someone is going to get hurt?

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

The Worst Song I Heard at Work This Week

As previously discussed, the muzak at work provides us with an all-you-can-eat doodoo buffet for the ears. It's not easy picking out one song to earn the title of most annoying, but this week, I think the honor goes to a little ditty called "Life Less Ordinary" by a band with the unlikely moniker "Carbon Leaf.".
(seen here looking all serious with their groovy '70's hair)

But what makes this song more irritating than the others? you might well ask.

Well, I'm glad you asked. (and by you, I mean my imaginary version of you whom I imagined asking.)
Mainly, it's lyrics like this:
The night you came into my life
Well it took the bones of me, took the bones of me
You blew away my storm and strife
And shook the bones of me, shook the bones of me
So, are we to understand that the night you met the young lady she removed your skeletal system from your body, then shook it? Took it then shook it? (Good to repeat the most ridiculous lines for emphasis!)

And these four lines are repeated two more times later in the song, beacause their author was just so gosh-darn proud of them!

Then the line that follows this super-pretentious statement?
By the way, I do know why you stayed away...
I will keep tongue-tied next time

No! You just can't follow that ostentatious, grandiose bit of pseudo-poetry with "by the way," you just can't!

Honey understand (honey), honey understand

I won't rest in stone all alone

"rest in stone?" what the hell does that even mean? Did you just need something to rhyme with "all alone?"

If I could make you dance for joy
Could that be the second-chance decoy?

Oh, you do just throw random words in there to make rhymes. Wow! That's some impressive hackery!

Monday, April 20, 2009

Manufactured Outrage

Oh my God, Oh my God, Oh my God!!!!!!!!

The president shook hands with the president of Venezuela, which is horrific, because, um . . . . .I'm sorry, why is this so bad?

Mr Gingrich?

Everywhere in Latin America, enemies of America are going to use the picture of Chavez smiling and being with the President as proof that Chavez is now legitimate,

Um, Chavez IS Legitimate. He was duly elected by the people of Venezuela three times.

How about you, Joe Scarborough? Maybe you can help me understand why I should be appalled by a handshake?

a president always sends a message to the world. There are -- I know this is hard to believe -- there are very evil people in the world who want to kill Americans, and they look for an opportunity at all times for weakness. When they find weakness, they exploit it. That's the danger. if the president's seen as weak, that can hurt you, me, New York City, everybody.

Right, because nothing says "weakness" like a handshake, I guess. . . Um, maybe Col. Ralph Peters?

What he did by talking to Hugo Chavez and embracing him and fist-bumping and making lovey-dovey in the hotel -- God knows what went on behind closed doors."

Um, eeewww! You're not allowed to talk anymore, Colonel Peters! Can you do any better, Fox News Correspondent Eric Shawn?

Well, it's a defeat for Barack Obama if it's a huge win for Hugo Chavez

Um, Eric, they were shaking hands, not arm-wrestling.

So, if I get the gist of what you all were saying, a US president just shouldn't be friendly with a foreign leader who is less than an all-around good guy?

(George W. Bush with Uzbeki dictator Islam Karimov)

(George W. Bush with saudi dictator Prince Saud al Faisl)

Oh, so it's not even about that, is it? This is just what you're going to be doing for the next 4 or, hopefully 8, years. Trying to pretend that you're outraged at everything president Obama does or doesn't do (flag pin) no matter how innocent. This is all you got? You have no ideas of your own, no legitimate policy alternatives to suggest, so this is all you can do, isn't it?


Friday, April 17, 2009

Tea parties

So the tea parties are over, for now. Apparently, it will be July 4th when we next see this group of wingnuts out in force. But who are the "teabaggers" and what do they want? Let's take a look:
In addition to the usual conspiracy buffs, the rage-a-holics, the tragically misinformed, and the the willfully ignorant, there are a few particular breeds of folks who populate these gatherings.

You have, of course, the Chronically confused--for instance, those who oppose any cuts to the military, and also oppose the taxes with which the military is funded.

You have the "birthers," those who refuse to believe that President Obama was born in the U.S. even though his Hawaiian birth certificate is available on the internet for anyone who wants to see it.

You have your religious fanatics:

and those who would prefer no income to having their income be taxed.

But what do they want? There seems to be some confusion over what exactly they are for and against. It reminds me of the scene in "The Wild One" where the guy asks Brando "what are you rebelling against?" and Brando shrugs and answers "what do you got?"

Lets see if we can sort out some of their positions, shall we?

OK, Clearly they are anti-environment,


Pro-free market, anti-free loader

Pro-founding fathers and Anti-fascism.

They are clearly in favor of the truth being proclaimed courageously

and clearly opposed to being trod upon.

They firmly oppose socialists working in cahoots with Wall Street

And firmly support ridiculously unrealistic tax schemes.

They stand firmly against Big Business, Large Labor Unions, and tiny, underfunded associations of homeless advocates.

They are for deliberation

And against correct spelling.

They are opposed to living in 18th century Colonial America,

But would like to live in an era before the federal reserve bank came into existence

They care about little porky things, and want Chuck to be aware of this.

They are in favor of long, long, boring books.

And against having a coherent point.

They enjoy pointing out obvious facts

And hate being trampled by a pig.

They love wearing costumes

and making kids hold up signs they couldn't possibly understand.

But Most of all. . . . . .

They're just batshit fucking crazy!

Oh, and dicks. They're also total dicks.