Friday, December 31, 2010

We Have A Winner!

Disgrace 2010

With one day left in the competition, Michele Bachmann (R-Insania) has just put herself over the top for Public Disgrace of the year 2010!

The award is given to the person who does the most to bring disgrace upon our fair nation and the voters who put him or her in a position of responsibility.

Other nominees included

Steve King

Sam Brownback

And perennial contender James Inhofe
Besides just being Michele Bachmann, which is disgraceful enough, our winner has produced a steady series of stupid, crazy and paranoid quotations the like of which we haven't seen from an elected official since Jim Bunning last went off his meds.

A few highlights include:

I want to thank Governor Palin for breaking the barrier by being a woman as a vice president on the ticket.

I had a great career as a federal tax attorney, and I don’t need government to be successful.

During the last 100 days we have seen an orgy. It would make any local smorgasbord embarrassed … The government spent its wad by April 26.

But now the topper. Michele explains how she became a Republican:
Until I was reading this snotty novel called 'Burr,' by Gore Vidal, and read how he mocked our Founding Fathers. And as a reasonable, decent, fair-minded person who happened to be a Democrat, I thought, 'You know what? What he's writing about, this mocking of people that I revere, and the country that I love, and that I would lay my life down to defend -- just like every one of you in this room would, and as many of you in this room have when you wore the uniform of this great country -- I knew that that was not representative of my country.

And at that point I put the book down and I laughed. I was riding a train. I looked out the window and I said, 'You know what? I think I must be a Republican. I don't think I'm a Democrat.'

I always love when people proclaim that they would gladly lay down their life for their country. Those people have almost never served in the military. I always want to say "hey, there's an Army recruitment Center just down the street, let's go get you signed up!" I always think of that when I hear the Gawdawful song "God Bless the USA."

There's a line that says "I'd gladly stand up next to them [those who died for our freedom] and defend her still today," and I just want to forcibly enlist Lee Greenwood and anyone who sings that song in the Marine Corps. It's like  guy telling his wife, "I would die to protect you honey, oh shit! A mugger! Take her!" But I digress.

You seriously became a Republican because you thought Gore Vidal was a jerk? By that standard, shouldn't you have switched to another party when you found out that Mark Foley was hitting on teenage boys, or Duke Cunningham was taking bribes, or David Vitter likes kinky diaper-sex with hookers? Shouldn't you have said "Hey, I'm not a pederast, I'm not a hooker-fucker, I guess I'm not a Republican after all." I mean, if you're going to judge the entire Democratic party  by a book written by a man who is not even a political office-holder, shouldn't you apply the same standard to the Republicans? Shouldn't you have looked at Ronald Reagen and said "I'm not a senile incompetent who runs shocking deficits while preaching fiscal responsibility. I don't swap arms for hostages while looking America in the eye and vowing 'we will not negotiate with terrorists.' I haven't sold chemical weapons to Sadam Hussein or armed a bunch of Muslim radicals led by Osama bin Laden," I must not be a Republican."
But no. A book about Aaron Burr gets you upset enough to change parties, but 8 years of the corrupt incompetent Bush administration? That just strengthens your party loyalty? Now that's crazy. And stupid. And that is why Minnesota's own Michele Bachmann is the winner of the Public Disgrace of the Year Award for 2010. Great job, Minnesota. You must be so proud.

A Theology Lesson From Pat Robertson

VIRGINIA BEACH (The Borowitz Report) - Rev. Pat Robertson sparked controversy in today's broadcast of his 700 Club program when he claimed that God created the blizzard currently battering the Northeast "to punish Americans who were planning to drive to do something gay."
Explaining his theory, Rev. Robertson said, "Because of the bad road conditions the Almighty has made, any gay activities that people were planning on doing will have to be postponed by a day or two."
Additionally, he argued, God shut down major airports in the New York area "so that people who were hoping to fly to do something of a gay nature would have to take a train or a bus, so it might be days before the gay thing they were going to do could occur."
So I believe the lessons we should learn here are:

1) God doesn't want you doing gay stuff in the winter. Wait until Spring to be abominations unto the Lord

2) God has a surprisingly weak grasp of American geography, sending a blizzard that completely bypassed the Castro, West Hollywood and Boys' Town. 

3) When God wants to stop gay people from doing gay stuff, he has no way of targeting just them, he also has to prevent teachers from doing teacher stuff and doctors from doing doctor stuff, even preachers from doing preacher stuff. 
(Boys' Town. See what I did there?)
4) God can't stop the gay, he can only hope to delay it for a couple of days.

5) This story is probably a parody, because if Pat Robertson had really said domething like this, he would probably have added something like "God can't smite all these bad people by himself, he wants you to send me whatever money you still have left to finance a gay-smiting mission."

6) The fact that people see this story and think it's probably true says a lot about what a horrible person Pat Robertson is.

Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Terrible Ad Campaigns -- Diamonds

One of the best things about Christmas being over is that we get a short reprieve from the onslaught of diamond commercials, at least until Valentine's Day. Every ad for diamonds seems to be based on a couple of awful assumptions.

1) Your wife or girlfriend can't possibly be expected to love you if you don't buy her diamonds.

2) If your husband or boyfriend isn't buying you diamonds, he probably doesn't really love you.

3) Women love sparkly things more than anything in the world.

4) What women like about getting engaged/married is not the whole "love" thing, it's the big sparkly diamond.

One of the worst offenders is KAY Jeweler's with their "every kiss begins with KAY" campaign. Only diamond jewelery will make a woman want to kiss you. If you buy her a non-diamond gift, get ready for a lot of smooch-free evenings!

You know, kids, it was nice of you to put all this time and effort into trying to make a special day for me, but diamonds! Now that's a real gift!

Then there's this ad, in which the woman is frightened by lightning and need shiny diamonds to calm her down. She's basically a parakeet in a tight sweater. Seriously, what grown woman is frightened by lightning? And needs a big strong dude to feel safe? If she was frightened by a burglar, that might make some sense, but how is the dude going to protect you from lightning? Which you don't need to be protected from because you're indoors. It's just ridiculous.

And then there's Jared. You may be lucky enough not to have Jared where you live, I never heard of them until I moved to Atlanta. But there campaign revolves around the phrase "He went to Jared!"

Oh, you've found the love of your life and you're getting married? Ho hum, zzzzzzzzzzzzz. Oh a bright shiny sparkly thing! Congratulations, you lucky girl!

On the other hand, if your fella didn't go to Jared, well, let's just say it's gonna be awfully lonely for him on that couch.

 Because what's the point of having a husband if he isn't supplying you with pretty, shiny baubles?

And I haven't seen one of these DeBeers ads for a while, but as I recall the basic plot is the lady marries the guy, has kids with him, puts up with them for 25 long horrible years, then finally she earns the shiny diamonds. With very suggestive music in the background. And I know, it's Handel or whoever, but I've always thought that that part of "Water Music" or whatever it is sounds a lot like sex building to a climax. Sorry if I ruined it for you. If I made it better, you're welcome!

Every year they trot out these ads and every year they make me crazy.

Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Worst Argument Ever Against DADT Repeal

So apparently, there is a website called (ironically enough) "The American Thinker." And apparently, this website employs someone known as "Robin of Berkeley." I can't find any pictures of Ms. OfBerkeley, so I will just go ahead and assume that this is a fairly accurate artist's rendition: 
Anyway, here is Robin of Berkeley's resoned argument for keeping Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Repeal!

By Robin of Berkeley
The debate about repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," now passed into law, has triggered a long-repressed memory of mine from the '70s. 

Wow, a memory repressed for almost 30 years! It must have been horribly traumatic! Were you attacked by a gang of "wilding" youth? Witness a murder? Did you see terrible things in 'Nam?
  It was when I was hit on by a woman. 
Oh my God, that must have been horrible! Wait, what? When you say "hit on," do you mean she assaulted you? Tried to force you into sex? Groped you against your will? What horrible thing did this woman do?

I was changing in the locker room when one of the women in the class, Judy, stared at me lasciviously.  I automatically turned away and got the heck out of there.  
Um, yeah. Okay. That's what your subconscious repressed for almost 3 decades? Being looked at? 
I mean, granted, if that did really happen, I could see where that would make you uncomfortable. Of course, I'm used to it by now, being the insanely handsome devil that I am, but sure, I could see feeling a bit awkward. 
I felt unnerved, repelled.  Guys had looked at me that way.  And if I liked them, then I relished the attention.  But a girl eyeing at me that way?  That made me very uncomfortable.
Usually, this sort of paragraph is preceded by the phrase "Dear Penthouse Forum. . ."
At the time, my reaction proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to me that I was straight.  
You needed proof?   It's usually pretty easy to tell. I find women attractive, so I'm "straight." I don't really need to prove anything. You don't find women attractive, so you are also "straight." There's really no "proof" involved. And I have to assume the lesbian population of Berkeley isn't spending a whole lot of time mourning the loss. 
 Fortunately, at that time, there wasn't any peer pressure on youth, at least in that realm.  Back then, the media and the schools weren't pitching homosexuality. 
Okay, first of all, in what time period did you live in which there was no peer pressure? The Mesozoic? And secondly, who the hell is "pitching homosexuality?" And is that supposed to be a pseudo-clever "pitcher/catcher" joke?  'Cause it's been done to  death.
Seriously, though, who is "pitching homosexuality?" The media? I can't remember the last time I saw a  gay character on TV. Oh, wait, I saw a rerun of Will and Grace the other day. But somehow, I managed to not get turned gay! 
ooh, that almost did it!
And I haven't been in a school for quite a while, but I think there would have been quite an uproar if the teachers were giving how to be gay lessons to the kids. Remember the hue and cry over "Heather Has Two Mommies?" Just having a book in the library that acknowledged that some people are gay was too much of an outrage for parents to tolerate. 
 Of course, we live in different times.  If the same incident happens to a young girl today, she feels pressured to loosen up, lighten up, and experiment.  This is why polls show that an astounding number of girls from 13 to 21 have had least one lesbian encounter.  
Well, it's hard to argue against that kind of evidence. An astounding number, you say? Why I remember just a few years ago when it was merely a surprising number. Of course, in my day,  only a paltry number of teen girls had "lesbian encounters," so that proves, um, something? I guess? By the way, this is what I found about that "astounding number" using a research method known as "googling it":
You may have seen this amazing news headline: 1 in 10 Teens Has Had a Same-Sex Partner. The story on AOL Health begins this way:
Nearly one in ten teens has had a same-sex partner — double what previous research has shown, according to a surprising new study. . .
The only problem with this revelation is that it’s false. If the reporter for AOL had taken time to read just the abstract for the Pediatrics article she may have seen the heading “CONCLUSIONS” (in all caps) and noted this summary:
Of sexually active adolescents, 9.3% reported a same-sex partner, a higher estimate than other published rates.
AOL speaks of 1 in 10 teens; the original article concludes 9.3% of sexually active adolescents reported a same-sex partner. There’s a big difference. The survey analyzed data from 17,220 teenagers. Of those, 7,261 (or 42%) reported having had sex. So according this study 58% of teens are not having sex with anyone and 9.3% of those have, had same-sex partners, or 3.9% of the total sample.

Back in my day, it would have been odd for a girl to have a homosexual experience.  These days, the oddballs are the kids who don't give in to peer pressure. 
Um, the kids who don't give in to peer pressure have always been considered the "oddballs."  And by your logic, 94% of today's teens are "oddballs" who don't give in to peer pressure.

And the pressure is not just from other kids.  Television shows, magazine articles, even some teachers shout out the message to indulge in every possible sexual predilection.  Rather than "give peace a chance," the new national vibe is give hedonism a chance!
Yes, that's exactly what's happening. Teachers everywhere are inviting students to orgies and bondage clubs. That's it exactly. That's a totally realistic assumption.
So, anyway, what does your one encounter with someone who may have ogled you in a locker room ahve to do with our nation's military policies?

A couple of years ago, in my leftist days, I would have been a strong proponent of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."  But now that I take a few moments to actually think about things, the commingling of out-of-the-closet gays and straights in our military seems like a disaster in the making.

Given the stresses of service -- long stretches away from family, depression, and loneliness, not to mention the adrenaline surge of war -- isn't it a potential problem for so much sexual tension to be circulating in the air? 

You know, it's not prison!

They do get shore leave. They do have access to potential sexual partners of whichever gender they prefer.
Frankly, I'm even questioning whether men and women should serve together for long periods of time in such intimate circumstances.  Hasn't that alone led to unintended pregnancies and affairs?

No, serving together for long periods doesn't alone lead to unwanted pregnancies. You see, when a mommy and a daddy really love each other, and they want to make a baby. . . you know what, just ask your mom. 

Personally, I wouldn't like it one bit if I were stuck in a tent -- or a submarine -- with someone like Judy.  
I'm sure it wouldn't be a day at the beach for Judy, either. Of course, part of being in the military is doing things that you don't like one bit, like, say, getting shot at. Why should having to bunk with Judy be any different? "Sarge, I'll go charge that machine-gun nest at the top of the hill through the minefield, but I can't share a tent with Judy, she makes me feel uncomfortable."

Progressive readers will brand me a homophobe for saying what I'm saying.  I'm not homophobic, but I am a realist. 

Well, if that doesn't prove it, I don't know what does. Just like I may be afraid of heights, but I'm not an acrophobe.
  War creates a level of stress that we civilians cannot understand. 
But why should we let that stop us from opining on it?
It's not coincidental that most of the politicians voting to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"  have never served in the military themselves.
Well, I'm pretty sure that Admiral Mike Mullen did. I think General Colin Powell did also. And they both came out in support of the repeal. So did 70% of active duty troops who answered the Pentagon's survey. 
But I guess that doesn't mean a whole lot when stacked up against the fact that you once got ogled by a woman in a locker room. 

Friday, December 24, 2010

Questionable Christmas Songs (2nd Annual)

1. The Little Drummer Boy.

Here's the problem with the Little Drummer Boy:  imagine your friend just had a baby. You go tot he maternity ward to visit. There's the new mother and the new father and the tiny little newborn baby, and you say "Gee, Bill and Susan, I didn't have enough money to get you a proper baby gift (I am a poor boy, too) but here is what I will do. I give you the gift of music." Then bang out a killer drum solo. How popular do you think you would be right then with Bill and Susan?
I don't claim to be any sort of baby expert, but here's what I do know about babies. They sleep. A lot. They really are just the laziest little people you'd ever want to meet. They sleep, they drink, and they pee themselves and cry. They're basically glorified winos. So the one thing that any parent of a newborn does not want is for someone to wake the baby. Because if he ain't sleeping, he's soiling himself and crying and no one wants that. Or he's reachin' for the boobies. Babies are freakin' obsessed with boobies! It's really just unseemly. Get over it babies, they're just boobies! Geez!
Anyway, if this kid came into the stable and started rum-a-tum-tumming on his little drum, Joseph would have thrown him out on his ear. And no way does the baby smile at him. I know he's Jesus, but still, he has his limits.
And baby Jesus is a way better drummer than you, anyway.
Here he is pounding out the solo from "Moby Dick"

2. Walking in a Winter Wonderland. 

This is not, strictly speaking, a Christmas song at all. There is no mention of Christmas in the lyrics at all. (Why do they hate America?) But it is in heavy rotation around the Holidays, so I'm including it here. In the middle of the song there is this odd verse:

In the meadow we can build a snowman,
Then pretend that he is Parson Brown

He'll say: Are you married?
We'll say: No man,
But you can do the job
When you're in town.

Okay, first of all, what kind of dirty hippies address the parson as "Man?" When the parson asks you a question the answer is "yes, sir" or "No, Reverend"  you don't talk to a man of the cloth like he's one of your crazy beatnik friends. You show some goddamned respect!

Secondly, if you built a snowman and he asks you a question, I'm pretty sure that the proper response is "AIEEEE!!!! A Talking Snowman!!!!!" Then you run. Run like the wind and never look back. And don't stop running until you are home behind a locked door. And let's never speak of this to anyone. 

3. Baby It's Cold Outside.

Again, not strictly speaking a Christmas song. But I include it here because I want to say something to the male singer in this duet. NO MEANS NO! 

Also, I think at one point, he slips her a mickey. 

The neighbors might think - Baby, it's bad out there
Say, what's in this drink?

That's pretty suspicious. Sounds to me like he might have roofied her. And that's not in keeping with the Holiday spirit. Actually, there isn't any time of year when that would be acceptable. What the hell? Why is there a Christmas song about date rape? That's really horrible.

And on that note,


Or Christmas

Or Channukah

Or whatever you  young people celebrate these days.

Damn kids!


Thursday, December 23, 2010

The AFA's Bryan Fischer May Have Topped Himself

Fischer is usually a crazy little prick, but this time he may have reached a new low (or high, depending on your perspective)

Today he starts out with this:

President Obama likes the “U.N. Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” He says it can “help reaffirm the principles that should guide our future.”   

Now any normal person would read that and say, "Oh, the Prez likes human rights, or at least likes paying lip-service to human rights, that's sorta nice." But Bryan Fischer is not a normal person. Not by a long shot!

This declaration - which carries”considerable moral and political force,” don’t forget - contains this little gem of a paragraph, in Article 26: 
“Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired,” and nations “shall give legal recognition and protection to these lands, territories and resources.” 

Okay. That seems fair. But only to a normal person. Because this is the conclusion Bryan Fischer draws:

In other words, President Obama wants to give the entire land mass of the United States of America back to the Indians. He wants Indian tribes to be our new overlords. 

While I, for one, would welcome our new Indian overlords, because really, how much worse could they possibly do?  there is no way Barack Obama would turn over the USA to Native Americans. They're not Muslim!

So maybe Fischer is joking, hmm? Not a chance!

I see no reason why the president, after he leaves office, can’t submit himself to the authority of any Indian tribe he wants to. Perhaps he figures that, as an adopted Crow Indian, he will be the new chief over this revived Indian empire. 

Um, where to begin? First, there never was any "Indian empire" in the land now known as the USA, so such an empire couldn't ever be revived. The Natives in North America were organized into dozens of tribes, some of whom fought against each other and -- fuck! haven't you ever seen a John Ford movie? Now south of the border, sure, you had your Inca empire in Peru and your Aztec and Maya in what is now Mexico, but no "Indian Empire" ever existed up here.

Second, if there was some new "Indian Empire" why would they put a non-Indian in charge? He knows nothing of their ways!

And third, fuck you!

You know, there was a time when someone like Bryan Fischer would have been relegated to standing on a milk crate on a street corner with a battery-powered bullhorn, but now this nutso gets taken seriously.

Tuesday, December 21, 2010

Happy Secession Day!

Photo detail

Actually, it was yesterday, but why quibble? This is the time of year when all real Americans come together to celebrate the folks who went to war against the United States largely to preserve the institution of slavery!

Charleston, SC is the hub of secession celebrating activity. Oh, wait, did I say celebrating? No, of course they aren't really celebrating!
(from the Charleston Post & Courier)
The organizers of the South Carolina Secession Gala — the biggest event of the day — said they were merely remembering history, not celebrating the controversial aspects of the Civil War and the role of slavery in the conflict.

Right, because everyone knows that there is nothing celebratory about a gala! I still tear up a little when I remember my grandfather's funeral gala. Oh, the dancing, the music, the ball gowns. . . so somber.

Although, this account from the Guardian of London seems to indicate that maybe there might have been just a teensy bit of celebration:

More than 600,000 men lost their lives during four years of carnage. In South Carolina, almost a quarter of the men who fought died.
For the 300 or so who assembled for the "secession ball", the tone was one of pride and resilience rather than regret. The guests were exclusively white; the only black people present were security guards wearing uniforms in navy blue, the colour of the union army.
The evening began with a theatrical re-enactment of the signing that culminated in a rousing oration. Those southerners who died did so, the narrator said "not to preserve the institution of slavery, not for glory or riches or honour, but for freedom alone. The spirit of the south still stands!"
"Yeah!" "All right!" came shouts from the audience. Then the auditorium stood in unison to sing Dixie, the anthem of the south. "Look away! Look away! Look away! Dixie Land."

Michael Givens, commander in chief of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said the Secession Gala honored the bravery and resolve of people willing to defend their homes, The (Charleston) Post and Courier reported.
"These people are to be honored, whether you agree with their politics or not," Givens said. "We're very happy that there's no slavery today. If there's one thing we can celebrate, we can celebrate the demise of that dark part of our history -- that there is no slavery in America."

Yes, let's celebrate that. Let's celebrate the end of slavery in America, on this the anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation!  Oh, but wait! This isn't that anniversary! This is the anniversary of secession! The day that the people of the Confederate States decided to risk their lives, limbs and fortunes in order to KEEP slavery! I got a little mixed up there. If there's one thing we can celebrate, it's that there is no more slavery. If there are two things, I would think we could celebrate the end of slavery and, um, slavery!

. . . one spokesman called the secession movement in S.C. “a demonstration of freedom” and denied that secession had anything to do with slavery. 
Just like the World Series has nothing to do with baseball.
Of course, the Declarations of Secession would seem to disagree with that.

From South Carolina's:
. . . an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations
. . .the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals
. . . A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. 
 From Georgia's:

For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.
 . . . We had acquired a large territory by successful war with Mexico; Congress had to govern it; how, in relation to slavery, was the question then demanding solution. This state of facts gave form and shape to the anti-slavery sentiment throughout the North and the conflict began. Northern anti-slavery men of all parties asserted the right to exclude slavery from the territory by Congressional legislation
 From Mississippi's:
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. . . and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union

 And of course, Texas:
In all the non-slave-holding States. . . the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.
Because when there's a who can be the biggest ass contest, always bet on Texas! ( I know there are many wonderful Texans - Jim Hightower, The late great Molly Ivins, Blueberry, etc.)

Aaaaaanyway, the driving force behind the treason day parties seems to be the Sons of Confederate Veterans, who are just a swell bunch of guys. Really, just, what a fun group!

The citizen-soldiers who fought for the Confederacy personified the best qualities of America. The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South's decision to fight the Second American Revolution
Liberty, freedom, slavery. . . hmmm. One of these things is not like the others. One of these things just doesn't belong. Come on, you know the words, sing along!

Today, the Sons of Confederate Veterans is preserving the history and legacy of these heroes, so future generations can understand the motives that animated the Southern Cause.

If by "heroes" you mean "traitors" and by "understand the motives"  you mean "pretend that slavery had nothing to do with it," then yeah. 

If you are interested in perpetuating the ideals that motivated your Confederate ancestor,[racism] the SCV needs you. The memory and reputation of the Confederate soldier, as well as the motives for his suffering and sacrifice, are being consciously distorted by some [mainly us] in an attempt to alter history. 
Let's give one of these fine gentlemen the last word:

Mark Simpson, commander of the South Carolina branch of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which sponsored the ball, said the line that the war was fought over slavery was spin, used by detractors of the south to discredit them. "Slavery was an issue, yes, but only because it was the economic lifeblood of the south."

Wow. Just, wow.

Monday, December 20, 2010

Scary Quote of the Day

"In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated, and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks,"

What makes this quote scary rather than merely nutty? It's from the man who will soon be in charge of the House Banking committee. 

Alabama Republican Spencer Bachus.

 Who, coincidentally, looks like Mr. Humphries from "Are You Being Served?"

It's Okay To Say

Happy Chrimbus! 

It's Okay to say Happy Chrimbus to me.

Other phrases which are okay to say to me include:

Happy Holidays!

Season's Greetings!

Chappy Channukah!

Super Solstice!

Here, I got you a little something!

Have some cake!

Excuse me, aren't you George Clooney?

You magnificent bastard!

A very merry un-birthday to you!

The Giants win the pennant! The Giants win the pennant!

It's late September and I really should be back at school.

This town ain't big enough for the two of us. Oh, wait. It's plenty big.


Happy Freakin New Year!

Friday, December 10, 2010


Should be back in about a week. Meanwhile, here are some baby cats.*pF2e5qwqeKQTlcEfz*BolO*xmCTdjDeRLTafyyOmczZorwsm7khcU2rKSuAxzGbaKRqd/Siberiantigercub.jpg

Thursday, December 9, 2010

So Apparently This Is A Real Thing That Exists

From Some Weirdo Company Called Boss Creations comes the CHRIST-mas Tree:

Because what better time than the holidays to angrily shove your political beliefs in everyone's face?
By the way, this tree-like object d'arte costs $399.99!

And they have lots of other super Christy Christmas-themed items for sale. Like this sign:

Wooden Sign w/ Holly 

Great. Good for your house! The people who live in the house may be doubters, but as long as the structure has faith. 

Or why not celebrate the birth of the Christ Child by reminding Him of the tortures he will one day endure at the hands of the Roman Empire?

Golden Crown of Thorns Tree Topper (made from an actual plant in the Holy Land)

Golden Crown of Thorns Tree Topper 

(made from an actual plant in the Holy Land)

Sure, you could top your tree with a star or an angel, but why not an instrument of torment? 'Tis the season to be jolly!

And for some reason, the Boss Creations website contains a link to this video by one of my favorite comics Jim Gaffigan

No, really! They have a list of links and it includes the Jim Gaffigan bit about holidays: Look!

Video Gallery

Welcome to our video gallery. Our goal is to share related material about bringing Christ back into the center of our celebrations, lives and into America. We hope that each of you Christians and patriots enjoy!

Songs, Videos & Articles

 I don't get it either. Most of them seem to be links to things in the spirit of  "Fuck you, heathen, this is our goddamm holiday! Say it! Say Christmas! Say it!!!!!" which is what the holiday season is really all about.

Also, there is a link to possibly the worst song ever written:  We the People Song
Check it out, it's enjoyable in a  train-wreck sort of way. It's kind of the "Plan 9 From Outer Space" of nonsensical patriotic music.

Oh, wait. This one is even worse: It's called Christmas with a Captial "C"  This one gets the 1990's boy-band treatment. And here's an odd little twist. If you click on the Christmas with a Capital C link, you see the video on YouTube. On the right side of the screen are YouTube's suggestions for other videos you might like if you like that one. The list includes:

So make of that what you will.

We've All Wanted to do This at One Time or Another!

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Chuck Norris Dildo Update

Every now and then, I like to check in with Chuck Norris and see if he's still a dildo.

Obama's 7 'Creator' omissions, Part 2 

Well, he's still writing for WorldNetDaily, that's a pretty strong indication of dildosity. But let's see what he's on about now.

Last week, I detailed seven occasions in the past few months at which President Obama omitted the words "by their Creator" from direct quotes of the Declaration of Independence

Chuck has a lot of free time, apparently.

I finished the article asking readers, "To you, is omitting 'endowed by their Creator' from direct quotes of the Declaration in several speeches a permissible benign act of the president of the United States?" 

Only if you're sane!
 Those words might seem justifiable to some, but it alarms me when omissions are exclusively divine and so easily exit and are excused by the U.S. supreme leader.                                    

Yes but on the other hand turnip matchbook cul de sac. Oh, we're not just tossing together random words?

Even at Independence Hall in Philadelphia, where both the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution were debated and drafted, divine omissions seem to be en vogue.
Recently, my pastor and the chaplain of my organizations, Todd DuBord, was on a tour of Independence Hall. . . When the National Park Service guide leading their group blurted out five unbelievable lies and distortions about our founders' religious beliefs and history, with school-aged children present as well in the room. 

 You know, I doubt very much that tour guides at Independence Hall just go around blurting out controversial statements about religion, but what the hell, I'll play along. What were these lies of which you speak?

"We have no record that George Washington ever attended church." 

Okay. I'll give you that one. If the tour guide did say that, then that is, maybe not a lie, but untrue. Washington was certainly not a devout man, but  he was known to occasionally attend services.
According to,

Washington gives us little in his writings to indicate his personal religious beliefs. As noted by Franklin Steiner in "The Religious Beliefs Of Our Presidents" (1936), Washington commented on sermons only twice. In his writings, he never referred to "Jesus Christ." He attended church rarely, and did not take communion - though Martha did, requiring the family carriage to return back to the church to get her later. 

So, that's one point for Norris. Next "lie?"

While the NPS guide physically hunched over, mimicked and mocked one carrying and swinging an oversized Bible in his hand, he said to the crowd: "Even if I said the founders were Christians, how could we really know? Just because people carry a big ol' Bible in their hand, they can still be atheists!" 

Again I very much doubt that an official National Parks Service tour guide was openly mocking Christians, but let's say he was. Is there anything he said here that isn't true? Do you really think that in the 18th Century, an atheist might not have felt compelled to pretend to be a religious person? If all of one's neighbors were say, Anglicans, might not a non-believer decide that to make his life easier he would present himself as a Christian?  So, I'm sorry, Chuck, but I can't give you the point on that one. Next?

"Most of these men owned slaves. How could good Christians do that?" 

I think most of them did. Certainly Washington did. So did Jefferson. And slavery doesn't really seem to mesh well with a religion founded on things like "love your neighbor as yourself," and "do unto others as you would have them do unto you."  Sorry, Chuck. No point.

"We know that Benjamin Franklin was a deist." 
Hmm, you think that's a lie? Because I can thinbk of at least one guy who would disagree with you. Oh, gosh, what was his name. . .oh, right! Ben Franklin!

. . . the Arguments of the Deists which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much Stronger than the Refutations. In short I soon became a thorough Deist.(from Franklin's Autobiography)

You're not doing to well here Chuckles. What else you got?

"We don't really know for sure about their religion. It's open for interpretation. You'll have to do your own study on that." 
That's it? That's your whole list of Lies and Distortions?" You've got one thing in there, one thing that isn't true. And it's really more of an exaggeration than a lie. But that's enough to get you in a lather of righteous outrage?


Things I Miss About San Francisco -- The Fabulous Bud E. Luv Show

The legendary Bud E. Luv is often referred to as the world's greatest entertainer, mainly by himself.
And on stage, he lives up to his own hype! Back in the day, he used to play San Francisco's Paradise Lounge every week. And many a night, we were there in the front row.

Here's Inside Edition's report on Bud E.

For some reason, there aren't a lot of videos of Mr. Luv on the interwebs, but here's one of Bud E. charming the ladies:

And here is an audio track of Bud E. covering Ozzy Ozbourne:

The Heaven and Hell medley:

Check him out in the lounge and request a song. Maybe it will work on your computer, for some reason, my computer has a problem with shockwave.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Janet is Bringing Panic Back!

Remember how for a couple of years after 9/11, everyone was so paranoid about everything and everything looked like a bomb
  and we were all on the verge of panic all the time? Those were good times! Terrorists hiding under every bed, sleeper cells in every neighborhood, I miss those days. You know who else misses that? Janet Napolitano! That's why this video will be playing at Wal-Marts all over the U.S. of A.

God, could you imagine being local law enforcement getting calls day and night from WalMart customers who think they saw Osama bin Laden parking his Winnebago in the parking lot?

Can you imagine fielding the calls from people like this lady or gentleman

every time s/he sees "something suspicious," like a hippy or a Jew!

Is this the person Janet Napolitano thinks would be a good help in collecting intelligence on possible domestic terrorists?

You really think this guy


is going to be a valuable asset keepin' an eye out fer any trubble?

Okay, maybe this guy

He looks like he might be pretty handy with a shootin' iron. Although I'd be a mite worried 'bout that itchy trigger finger of his'n.

Honestly, do you think there has ever been a moment in this woman's life where she hasn't seen "something suspicious?"