Monday, January 31, 2011

This Just In. . .

"Octomom" Nadya Suleman to star in "The David Vitter Story."

I'm very sorry.

Another Isolated Incident

California Man Arrested With Explosives at Michigan Mosque

Jan 31, 2011 – 6:11 AM
remember, everybody, Roger Stockham is just a mentally disturbed man acting alone. His actions can not possibly be related to anything like this:
Or This:
Somali immigrants want Sharia law, and they want to get stoned. That makes sense!
No, nothing that anyone on FOX said about Sharia Law coming to take over America could possibly have made this nutjob want to blow up a mosque. None of the many reports that FOX has done on "Creeping Sharia" and "Stealth Jihads" could possibly have had an influence on this guy.  How dare you think such a thing?

Sunday, January 30, 2011

Worst Billboard Ever.

Warning: The two fake reporters on this clip are super-annoying, but it only lasts about a minute.

Devastating Billboard Fail

Friday, January 28, 2011

Idiotic Member of the Georgia Delegation of the Day

It's Paul Broun again!

Paul Broun was apparently "live-tweeting" the State of the Union Address. (Live-Twittering?)

Here is one of his "Tweets"

 How many ways can one be idiotic in a mere 12 words?
Let's start with the idea that the President might actually be taking the time to read a mouth-breathing back-bencher's Twitter feed. Yeah, that seems realistic.
Then there's the "you believe in socialism" nonsense. That hardly seems worth refuting, it's so prima facia absurd. The president who believes in socialism extends the Bush tax-cuts, bails out the auto corporations and uses the SOTU to propose a spending freeze and reduction of corporate tax rates. He believes in socialism like Richard Dawkins believes in Allah.

Then there's this suggestion that somehow the Constitution and socialism are mutually exclusive. I know that to the teabagger mind anything they don't like is unconstitutional, but there is nothing in the Constitution forbidding socialism. If there were we wouldn't have an Interstate Highway system, a Postal Service, or even a military. All those things are funded by taxing the citizenry. Everybody has to pay their share whether or not you ever plan to drive across country or mail a letter or invade a foreign country. That's socialism. Everyone gets the same benefit whether your tax bill comes to $100. or $1,000,000. Even if you didn't earn enough to pay any taxes, the Army will still protect you from the Ruskies, you are welcome to drive on the Interstate, and the Post Office will still bring you your bills and catalogs. How does a member of Congress not understand this?

Bristol Speaks - Or Does She?

Treasury funds Bristol Palin to speak on campus

Bristol Palin has been selected as keynote speaker for this year’s Sexual Responsibility Week at Washington University.
Student Union Treasury on Tuesday approved a $20,000 appeal by the Student Health Advisory Committee (SHAC) to sponsor a four-person panel featuring Palin. 
 Jeezus Christ, that's a lot of money. For that type of cash, what will Bristol be discussing?

The panel will address the issue of abstinence in a college setting. 
Abstinence in a college setting? Someone who has never attended college and sucks at abstinence is going to be the keynote freakin' speaker at a discussion of abstinence in college? Why not ask her to discuss the difficulties of playing in the NFL, or what it's like to be raised by decent parents?
Why not pay her $20,000 to talk about how to pick the right guy? Or pay her to explain why she named her baby "Tripp" when a: Tripp is not a name and b: the nickname "Tripp" generally is given to someone with a "The third" after his name.

What is she going to say to the audience? "Don't have sex because you might get knocked up like me and then you'd be forced to travel around to various shitty colleges talking about it for $20,000 a pop." 'Cuz I think that's pretty much the extent of her insight into the matter. 

The event will begin with a 25-minute speech by Palin on her life story to be followed by an hour-long panel discussion and a half hour question-and-answer session. A reception will be held after the question and answer to allow students to interact with Palin one-on-one.
Of course, the last time someone interacted one-on-one with Bristol, she got pregnant.
And how in the hell can it take 25 minutes to tell her life story? She's what, 20 years old? "First I was a baby, then a little girl, then I got knocked up and went on Dancing With the Stars and Levi's a total butthead!"
Some Treasury members felt that Palin’s speech would spark student interest.
“I know it will fill Graham Chapel, so to me, that’s value in itself,” said Treasury representative Daniel Bernard, a junior. “It brings the student body together in a way that we usually don’t have on this campus.”

I think bringing the student body together is exactly what Bristol is there to warn against!

“One concern I do have when we fund someone like Bristol Palin is, what really are we supporting? And to me it’s someone who is famous because they got pregnant at 18,” said freshman Jacob Trunsky, chair of the Budget Committee.

Now that's just not fair. She was sixteen.

“I understand that people are not going to be happy—this will probably be protested. We really just want to start dialogue and the fact that we’re bringing in a balanced panel should be taken into account,” Elman said. “We’re not just bringing in Bristol Palin, we’re bringing her in with three or four other educated people.”

Oh. Three or four educated people? (Technically not "other educated people") Who else is on the panel?Who are these others who will be providing balance?

The originally scheduled panel included representatives from the Catholic Student Center, Missouri Right to Life, and Planned Parenthood. 

Now that's balance! One speaker from Planned Parenthood, two from the "don't have sex 'cause you might get pregnant" school and one from the "don't have sex 'cause you'll go to hell" academy.

Wow, this whole sex-week abstinence panel just sounds awesome! I just can't wait until. . .

Bristol Palin will not speak at Washington University; SHAC says decision mutual  

Oh, I'm sure the decision was mutual. Just like when my sophomore-year girlfriend broke up with me at the Spring dance, it was mutual. I'm sure that the person who now won't be getting 20 grand for nothing was really okay with this. Heck, it was probably her idea.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Why Isn't This A Bigger Story?

A "Minuteman" leader is on trial for murdering a Mexican family. Why is this not front-page news? Maybe because there's no debate about whether this horrible evil woman is a member of the racist, nativist right-wing? There's no way for the right to plausibly distance themselves from her or claim that she is really a liberal?

"Minutemen" Member on Trial in Murder of Girl, 9

Shawna Forde, Leader of Fringe Militia Group, Accused of Killing Latino Man, Daughter in their Arizona Home


(CBS)  TUCSON - A woman went on trail Tuesday in Arizona accused of gunning down a 9-year-old girl and her father in their own home. The story was overshadowed by news of President Obama's big speech and by the other Arizona shooting which has gripped the nation, but it's no less shocking.  

Right, we can't be concerned with actual right-wing violence when there is violent rhetoric to be debated.


Here is what her brother has to say about her:

(from the Arizona Star)

Accused ringleader Shawna Forde told her family in recent months that she had begun recruiting members of the Aryan Nations and that she planned to begin robbing drug-cartel leaders, her brother Merrill Metzger said Monday in a telephone interview from Redding, Calif.
"She was talking about starting a revolution against the United States government," he said.

So why is this not a big story? Is it because the narrative has already been decided upon? The narrative that states that these "Minutemen" types, oh sure they may be a little eccentric, but basically, they're just a bunch of America-loving good-ole-boys who aren't hurting anyone, etc. etc. etc. Is that narrative so set in stone that to report on this racist murderer would just be more trouble than it's worth?

Rock And Roll Songs and the Lies I Was Told About Them

When you attend parochial schools as I did for 12 years, you occasionally get to attend presentations on the various evils lurking in the lyrics of popular music. Here is a list of some of the incorrect information that was contained in some of those presentations.

Suicide Solution, Ozzy Ozbourne
    I was told that this song was encouraging the listener to commit suicide as a solution to all of life's problems. Which I could see someone inferring from the title, but why not take a look at what the lyrics actually say? If anything, the song seems to be a warning about the dangers of alcohol.

Wine is fine
But whiskey's quicker
Suicide is slow with liquor
Take a bottle drain your sorrows

Hey, Jude, The Beatles.
I was told that in the song "Hey, Jude," Paul McCartney is advising Jude to use heroin. Apparently the phrase "Let her under your skin" and "let her into your heart" were supposed to refer to injecting heroin under one's skin and into one's bloodstream.
Hey Jude, don't be afraid
You were made to go out and get her
The minute you let her under your skin
Then you begin to make it better
Sure, obviously that's about heroin. What else could it possibly be about? Meeting a nice girl and falling in love? Don't be so naive!

Beast of Burden, The Rolling Stones.
   I was told that this song is about sado-masochism. Which one could buy if one looked at the title and did not read any of the lyrics. They could have just said that this was a very naughty song because it contains pleas for S-E-X, but no, they went with the S&M lie. Why? I don't know why.

I'll never be your beast of burden
My back is broad but it's a hurting
All I want is for you to make love to me
I'll never be your beast of burden
I've walked for miles my feet are hurting
All I want is for you to make love to me

Dog Eat Dog, Adam and the Ants.
   I was told that the term "dog eat dog" was a slang term for two men blowing each other. (I'm sure the guy didn't use those words, but it eas something like that.) Aaaaanyway, that may be true. "Dog eat dog" may very well be a slang term for oral sex, but the song has absolutely nothing to do with sex of any type. Not that Adam + the Ants didn't have some risque' songs (Whip in My Valise, Strip) but this wasn't one of them. You can see the lyrics here. Maybe you can make sense of them. I have no idea what the song is about, but it's not about blowjobs.

Bridge Over Troubled Water, Simon and Garfunkle
   I was told that the "bridge" in this song referred to heroin, which Simon & Garfunkle were advocating as a way to get over the "troubled waters" of  life. Seriously. This verse:
Sail on Silver Girl,
Sail on by
Your time has come to shine
All your dreams are on their way
was supposed to be especially incriminating, as the "silver girl"  was a syringe. Really. That's really what I was told.

Bonus: these two did not come from a parochial school presentation, but from a book I stumbled onto in a public library. The book was about songs which promote drug use. Two of the songs were "Heroin" by the Velvet Underground and "White Lines" by Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five. If one is not familiar with these songs, one might guess from their titles that they would be songs about how awesome drugs are. But if one has ever heard the lyrics to either song, that really could not be further from the truth.

Ticket to ride, white line highway
Tell all your friends, they can go my way
Pay your toll, sell your soul
Pound for pound costs more than gold
The longer you stay, the more you pay
My white lines go a long way
Either up your nose or through your vein
With nothin to gain except killin’ your brain

Not exactly a ringing endorsement for cocaine use.

I have made the big decision
I'm gonna try to nullify my life
'Cause when the blood begins to flow
When it shoots up the dropper's neck
When I'm closing in on death
And you can't help me not, you guys
And all you sweet girls with all your sweet talk
You can all go take a walk

Does that make you want to go shoot heroin?

Now I’m broke and it’s no joke
It’s hard as hell to fight it, don’t buy it!
Could that be a more explicit anti-drug lyric?

Anyway, I'm not sure what the point of all this was. I had a point when I started this post, but I don't remember what. I guess the main takeaway would be that I got lied to a lot in parochial school, and I don't really get why.

Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Dick Of The Day

Thomas Sowell
Thomas Sowell

Thomas Sowell thinks that major American Cities should be allowed to go bankrupt.


Jewish World Review Jan. 18, 2011 / 13 Shevat, 5771
Budget Crisis Rhetoric
By Thomas Sowell

Perhaps the most famous American budget crisis was New York City's, back during the 1970s. When President Gerald Ford was unwilling to bail them out, the famous headline in the New York Daily News read, "Ford to City: Drop Dead." 
. . .
What would have happened if President Ford had stuck to his guns and not set the dangerous precedent of bailing out local irresponsibility with the taxpayers' money?
New York would have gone bankrupt. But millions of individuals and organizations go bankrupt without dropping dead. 

Yeah, but isn't bankruptcy pretty much always bad? Even if it doesn't actually kill you?
Bankruptcy conveys the plain facts that political rhetoric tries to conceal. It tells people who depended on the bankrupt government that they can no longer depend on that bankrupt government. It tells the voters who elected that bankrupt government, with its big spending promises, that they made a bad mistake that they would be wise to avoid making again in the future. 

Yeah, but meanwhile, wouldn't a lot of people be out of work? People like cops and teachers, and . . . oh, I get it. That's the whole idea, isn't it?

 Legally, bankruptcy wipes out commitments made to public sector unions, whose extravagant pay and pension contracts are bleeding municipal and state governments dry. 

And there it is. See, Tom this is why you're the dick of the day, because nobody does the blindingly stupid/mean combo like you!

 It's really the fact that public sector employees make a decent living that is bleeding municipalities dry? It has nothing to do with American companies sending decent jobs overseas? The dwindling tax base caused by off-shoring jobs isn't what's hurting city budgets? And it's not the tax cuts for rich people? That's not it? It's the fact that cops get a decent pension? Not the fact that companies move from town to town based on which municipality is currently leading in the "race to the bottom" to see which city/county/state can offer corporations  the biggest tax breaks and the largest concessions in the hope of getting a few of the jobs that aren't going to China and India? No, it's those darn overpaid municipal employees.

I know a very nice couple back in California who are both public sector employees. One works for Alameda County and the other for University of California, and I can tell you that they are not living in the lap of luxury. They have the same trouble keeping up with bills as the rest of us. As a matter of fact, my father worked his entire adult life for the US Postal service, and while I didn't grow up in poverty, I can tell you that my father has never owned a new car in his life.  I don't think I ever wore a piece of new clothing until I started working and making my own money. Again, not exactly squalor, but come and say to my face that my father was overpaid. I dare you.

Politics being what it is, we are sure to hear all sorts of doomsday rhetoric at the thought of cutbacks in government spending. The poor will be starving in the streets, to hear the politicians and the media tell it.  But the amount of money it would take to keep the poor from starving in the streets is chump change compared to how much it would take to keep on feeding unions, subsidized businesses and other special interests who are robbing the taxpayers blind. 

So you would rather give handouts to people who have been reduced to beggary than pay city employees a decent wage for working in public service? That is some world-class assholery.

One of the political games that is played during a budget crisis is to cut back on essential services like police departments and fire departments, in order to blackmail the public into accepting higher tax rates. Often, a lot more money could be saved by getting rid of runaway pension contracts with public sector unions.
Bankruptcy can do that. Bailouts cannot. 

Really? The city doesn't have money for cops and firefighters, so they have to cut back on cops and firefighters, and you think that's a game they're playing? If I go to the gas station with ten dollars and I can only get a quarter tank of gas with ten dollars and the station owner says he can fill my tank if I give him more money, I don't accuse him of blackmail. I understand that gas costs money. You know what else costs money? Having cops and firefighters. If the city doesn't have the money to pay them, what are they supposed to do? They can't force them to work for free any more than I can force the gas station to fill up my tank for no additional money.

What the public needs are current policemen and current firemen, not retired policemen and retired firemen, much less bureaucrats retired on inflated pensions. 

Yeah, and good luck hiring all those cops and firefighters there in Sowellville once they know that you will use any budgetary excuse to yank their pensions. 

Thomas Sowell, Dick of the Day

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Mind-Numbingly Stupid Quote of the Day

From Michele Bachmann, of course.

Speaking of the founding of the United States:

"How unique in all of the world, that one nation that was the resting point from people groups [sic] all across the world," she said. "It didn't matter the color of their skin, it didn't matter their language, it didn't matter their economic status."
"Once you got here, we were all the same. Isn't that remarkable?" she asked.

 Um, I can think of a few people who might dispute that assessment. 

Seriously, how the hell do you make a statement like that? Has she never taken an elementary school history class? Never saw Roots? Never read anything ever about any subject?

Speaking at an Iowans For Tax Relief event, Bachmann (R-MN) also noted how slavery was a "scourge" on American history, but added that "we also know that the very founders that wrote those documents worked tirelessly until slavery was no more in the United States."

Oh my God! Really? Does she really not know that all the founding fathers were long dead when slavery was finally abolished? Does she no know that a whole lot of the founding fathers were themselves slaveholders?

"And," she continued, "I think it is high time that we recognize the contribution of our forbearers who worked tirelessly -- men like John Quincy Adams, who would not rest until slavery was extinguished in the country."

Unless by "rest" you mean "die," then yeah, he did rest before slavery was extinguished.

Oh, Michele Bachmann's version of history, what a wonderful place you must be!

All will be welcome in this new land, whether their skin be white, ivory, or beige! 

And whether they come from London, Manchester or even Liverpool!

Or Dublin!

All right, who said that? Who's the wise guy?

You're out of the club!

Also, we must banish the scourge of slavery from these shores!

That's all for tonight from Founding Fathers Theater. Join us next time when the founders insist that women be allowed to vote!

Monday, January 24, 2011

What Is It Going To Take For CNN To Rid Themselves Of Erick Erickson?

(From Media Matters)

CNN's Erick Erickson Suggests "Mass Bloodshed" May Be Necessary If Roe Isn't Overturned

January 24, 2011 10:15 am ET by Jamison Foser

Seriously, is there anything this revolting pustule of a man can say that would get him removed from the once respectable CNN?
CNN's Erick Erickson is also Editor-in-Chief and "Dear Leader" of the conservative blog Red State, so this charming passage posted by "The Directors" is presumably his doing:
Here at RedState, we too have drawn a line. We will not endorse any candidate who will not reject the judicial usurpation of Roe v. Wade and affirm that the unborn are no less entitled to a right to live simply because of their size or their physical location. Those who wish to write on the front page of RedState must make the same pledge. The reason for this is simple: once before, our nation was forced to repudiate the Supreme Court with mass bloodshed. We remain steadfast in our belief that this will not be necessary again, but only if those committed to justice do not waiver or compromise, and send a clear and unmistakable signal to their elected officials of what must be necessary to earn our support.

I have to assume that the "once before" is referring to the Civil War. Not that the Civil War was exactly a response to a Supreme Court decision but I can't think of what other "mass bloodshed" he could be referring to. And if that is indeed what he refers to, I think that if memory serves, the "repudiators" were themselves repudiated by losing the war.

Either way, how is it ever acceptable to call for mass bloodshed if you don't get your way politically? Mass bloodshed will not be necessary ONLY IF we get what we want? That's a pretty direct threat. I know that threatening violence is one of those things that is OK as long as you're a right-winger, but there has to be a limit. If CNN wants to reclaim any scrap of respectability, they will throw Erickson out on his ear. But I'm not holding my breath.

Friday, January 21, 2011

Idiotic Member of the GA Delegation of the Day.

Lest you get the impression that the entire Georgia Delegation is, shall we say, Gingresque, I should point out that my Congressman is Civil Rights Legend John Lewis (seen here in 1965 being so much cooler than your congressman will ever be.)

John Lewis (L), chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), and Hosea Williams, of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), announce a campaign of demonstrations against segregation in Georgia, July 26, 1965. 

On the other hand, if you thought Phil Gingery  (the man who replaced Newt Gingrich, hence my coining of the super-clever adjective "Gingresqe") was an embarrassment, meet Paul Broun.

Paul Brown, besides being a Congressman, is also a Doctor. So he has some insight into the Healthcare Crisis:

From his website, the assault on grammar and syntax is his:

Health Care

Our current health care system, with a reliance on third party, or employer provided, insurance is a relic of the 1940’s. As time marches on we are finding that individual patients, which should be the primary concern in any health care system, are being relegated to the backseat in the decision making process, leaving it up to their physicians to try to obtain payment from insurance providers, with varying degrees of success.

So this is rather a promising start. Dr. Broun is at least willing to admit that our system sucks. That's actually a pretty big step away from the official right-wing position that the US has "the greatest healthcare system in the world."  So what's his solution?

We must also take steps to ensure a transparent and market-based billing process. If a patient knows what they are paying for and receiving for that payment, then they can not help but be an active and engaged participant throughout the entire process. 

Okay, two things.  First, this is the very next sentence, so I don't know what the "also" is in reference to. But more importantly, what the hell? I've been hospitalized. They gave me a very detailed breakdown of what all the charges were for and how much I was being charged for which service and it didn't help me one bit. If anything, it just pissed me off knowing, it didn't allow me to negotiate a lower bill. They charged some outrageous ammount, I forget, it was years ago, for a "surgical consult" which consisted of a surgeon coming into my room looking at an X-Ray for all of thirty seconds and declaring that surgery would not be necessary. Knowing how much I was paying for that didn't do me any good. 

The right choice is to focus all of our efforts on laying a ground work for the free market to establish universal access to affordable, patient-centered health care coverage. 

And there it is. Of course, that's the answer. Of course it is. What else could it possibly be? You know, Doc, the free market has had, according to your opening sentence, SEVENTY FUCKING YEARS to get this shit right, and guess what? They still haven't come close. They are never ever ever going to be interested in "universal access to affordable, patient centered healthcare." That would slightly reduce their profits, covering everyone. It's ridiculous to think that they would ever be willing to provide universal access. 
So, of course it follows that Broun would put out this press release:

Broun Introduces Bill to Repeal and Replace Obamacare
I have introduced a bill to repeal the health care law and replace it with four simple, commonsense solutions that would lower costs and increase accessibility without government interference

 Oh, I can't wait to hear these! "Commonsense Solutions," eh? Bring 'em on!

H.R. 299:
  • Allows all individuals and businesses to deduct 100 percent of their health care expenses, including insurance premiums; 
Oh, that's going to be a Huuuuuuuuge help to those of us who can not get insurance at any cost. Also very reassuring to know that if I get hit with a $50,000 or $100,000 hospital bill, I will be able to deduct that from my taxes. It's more than I earned last year, but the deduction should cover the shortfall.

  • Strengthens and expands new avenues for affordable health care for sick Americans through state high-risk pools; 

  • Ah, that makes sense. Let the insurance companies cover the low-risk/high-profit customers and let the state take the loss on the high-riskers. Now that's what I call  "Free-Market solution," in that the market is free of  any risk.

  • Expands choice and competition by allowing consumers to shop for health insurance across state lines; 

  • You know, if that were actually going to be good for consumers, the insurance companies wouldn't be drooling over it, which I'm pretty sure they are. I think that the point of the "crossing state lines" thing is to prevent any state from being able to effectively regulate the industry. This isn't so much a common-sense solution, as it is a way to exacerbate the existing problems. 

    And creates association health plans, which would allow businesses, individuals and any entity to form pools that will increase availability and allow their sheer size to negotiate lower costs for their employees or members.

    I think that is what most companies already do. I think it's called a "group health plan." Maybe an "association health plan" is different, but I can't imagine that this is much of an improvement.
     But anyway, healthcare disingenuousness is one thing. You pretty much expect that from a Republican. Today, Rep. Broun is in the news with a statement that approaches Michele Bachmann territory.

    Broun warns of dictatorship

    Congressman stays on message - freedom at risk

    Oh, here we go!

    MADISON - U.S. Rep. Paul Broun is again raising the specter of Democrats turning the United States into a totalitarian state.
    Broun, R-Athens, apparently has not changed his belief that President Obama may be a fascist since he made similar remarks in Augusta in November and then in an Associated Press 

    How can he be a fascist when he is clearly a Marxist?


    He told a meeting of the Morgan County Republicans on Wednesday night that Obama already has or will have the three things he needs to make himself a dictator: a national police force, gun control and control over the press.
    "He has the three things that are necessary to establish an authoritarian government," Broun said.

    Of course, of course, right this way, Mr. Broun. . . 
    As he did when comparing Obama to Hitler and the Soviets last year, Broun cited a speech Obama gave in Colorado during the campaign last July calling for "a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded" as the military.

     Yes, the imaginary fictional security force is terrifying

     Broun also said he thinks the national media is openly supporting Obama's policies. He also said he believes the president and Attorney General Eric Holder will enact new gun-control policies.

    Sure, they had to go to the mat to get medical care for 9/11 responders, but they'll have no trouble getting gun-control through both houses.

    Holder said in February that he wants to renew a Clinton-era ban on assault weapons, but Obama said in April that he is putting the issue on the back burner.

    And we all remember the tyrranny of the Clinton Years. Without our ak-47's, federal stormtroopers were kicking in our doors every other day.

    At a town hall meeting in Clarkesville last month, Broun called Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid a "socialistic elite" and agreed with a constituent who said they might use a flu pandemic to declare martial law.
    "They're trying to develop an environment where they can take over," Broun said. "We've seen that historically."

    Jeezus Christ! When did we get to a point in our nation's history when someone who is clearly a delusional paranoid can be elected to public office and no one even blinks? If this nut actually believes half of this, he should be locked away where he can't hurt himself or anyone else.  A flu pandemic? Martial Law? Does this guy listen to himself? When has Obama displayed any totalitarian tendencies? Was it when he was getting steamrolled by Senate Republicans? When his judicial nominees were being filibustered? How would any sane person think that Obama might possibly be a threat to impose martial law? Wouldn't he be too busy imposing Sharia Law?

    Paul Broun, everybody! Give him a hand. He's the idiotic member of the Georgia Delegation of the Day!

    Thursday, January 20, 2011

    Asshole Quote of the Day

    From full-time asshole Rick Santorum, who is apparently seriously considering a run for the presidency, because if you're too insane to hold on to a Senate seat, well , you've gotta like your chances nationally!

    Anyway, here's is this moron scumbag's take on President Obama and abortion.

    The question is — and this is what Barack Obama didn’t want to answer — is that human life a person under the Constitution? And Barack Obama says no. Well if that person — human life is not a person, then — I find it almost remarkable for a black man to say, “We’re going to decide who are people and who are not people.”

    Really, I think it's remarkable that a man who keeps a miscarried fetus in a jar would comment publicly on well, anything. But especially anything to do with fetuses.

    He and Karen brought Gabriel's body home so their children could "absorb and understand that they had a brother," Santorum says. "We wanted them to see that he was real," not an abstraction, he says. Not a "fetus," either, as Rick and Karen were appalled to see him described -- "a 20-week-old fetus" -- on a hospital form. They changed the form to read "20-week-old baby." 
     (Washington Post)

     Although, if you're bringing the dead baby/fetus thing home to traumatize your other kids, then I guess that's not so strange after all. "Hey kids, here's your new baby brother! Oh, and he's dead! Just wanted to make sure that you understood that you had a brother who is now dead. I wouldn't want you thinking that mommy just had a miscarriage. I want you to truly feel the profound sense of loss."

    Gawd! Is there any way that story could be more horrifying? Oh, there is?

    Upon their son's death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen's parents' home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass. 

     Ladies and gentlemen, the next president of the United States!

    How To Make It Worse

     You know, when you do something embarrassing and people are laughing at you, one option would be to shrug it off and just wait until another panda cub sneezes or the next socially awkward person acts out a sci-fi movie and everyone forgets about you. That would be one option. Or. . .

    1. Remember how we all laughed last Friday at the cautionary tale that was “Girl falls into fountain while texting at the Berkshire Mall”? Well, the folks at the mall where the incident occurred probably aren’t laughing now, as Cathy Cruz Marrero (the fountain woman) is considering suing them. 
    Or you could go on Good Morning America to discuss a potential lawsuit. 

    I gotta say, the video of her GMA appearance is waaaaaaay funnier than the video of her falling into the fountain. "Nobody went to my aid!" Um, maybe because it took you all of 3 seconds to climb out of the fountain?

    "It could have been anyone's mother, it could have been a senior citizen!" Yeah, but it wasn't. An old lady falling into a fountain would not have been funny. A self-absorbed twit falling into a fountain, now that's hilarious!

     "The fountain could have been empty, I could be in the hospital. I could have got hit by a car!" You know what, you also could have knocked over an old lady with a walker. You could have trampled a toddler. Watch where the fuck you're going and you won't have this problem. 

    I think she expects us to feel sorry for her. The only one I feel sorry for is George Stephanopolous. He's gotta be regretting his most recent career move. Goddammit, George, you used to work in the White House! Now you're interviewing the YouTube ninny of the week. Nice move.

    Wednesday, January 19, 2011

    Stupid Quote of the Day

    From Georgia's own Phil Gingery:

    One hundred and twenty nine million people with pre-existing conditions! They would all have to have hang nails and fever blisters to have pre-existing conditions and if you believe those statistics, I’ve got a beach to sell you in Pennsylvania.

    You know, Phil, pre-existing conditions are used by the insurance companies to deny coverage. It's not a mqtter of whether or not those conditions are themselves serious. Remember Otto Radatz?

    Here was a man lining up to get surgery for cancer. The hospital appointment was booked when, surprise, the insurance company decided to rescind the policy. Why? Because Otto had failed to disclose the fact he had acne as a teen! This was a serious pre-existing condition and likely an indicator he would get cancer later in his life. His failure to disclose it justified rescission.
    Yeah, acne. Obviously acne is not a serious medical condition. That isn't the point. The point is that his insurance company was able to use this extrememly minor condition as an excuse to cancel his coverage when he had an extremely serious medical issue. And don't think that they're above denying someone say, open heart surgery, based on their having had hangnails and fever blisters.

    Tuesday, January 18, 2011

    Steve King Won't Let Them Steal Your Liberty!

    Somehow, this article from the horrible dishonesty factory "Newsmax" ended up in my inbox:

    Steve King: Obamacare 'A Theft of Liberty'


     Rep. Steve King, a leader of House Republicans seeking the repeal of Obamacare, tells Newsmax that the healthcare reform law constitutes “a theft of the liberty of the American people” and repeal is an ultimate certainty.

    Wow. How many ways can you be wrong in one sentence?
    Let's see.

    1. There is no such thing as "Obamacare."
    2. No liberty is being stolen from anyone by healthcare reform, unless you mean the liberty to be denied coverage due to pre-existing conditions.
    3. Repeal is not only not a certainty, it has virtually no chance of getting through the Senate.

    Other than that though, nice opening sentence.

    The Iowa Republican also declares that Obamacare was the “core issue” that ended Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats’ control of the House, predicts that the Senate will go along with the House and vote for repeal, and says if President Obama does not sign a repeal bill then Republicans will defund healthcare reform until Americans elect a president in 2012 who will support repeal.

    Really?  You think that healthcare reform is what swept you into the majority? Not "the economy, stupid?" Not the fact that Pelosi and the progressives were prevented from accomplishing anything by obstructionists in the Senate? Not the "enthusiasm gap" caused by ginning up phony fear and outrage amongst the most gullible and stupid among us while Democratic voters got discouraged by the lack of progress? No, I'm sure you're right. Americans voted out the Dems because they can't stand the thought of parents being able to keep their kids on their health plan for a few extra years. That's probably it.

    Ahead of Wednesday’s anticipated vote in the House on Obamacare repeal, Rep. King is presenting hundreds of thousands petitions [sic] from Americans demanding the repeal.

    Okay, couple of things. First of all, hundreds of thousands of petitions is not the same thing as hundreds of thousands of people signing petitions. Try typing "Healthcare Petition" into Google. There are tons of different petitions to which to affix one's signature.
    Second, hundreds of thousands is really not all that many in a nation of over three hundred million people.

    King was asked what message he is hoping to send. “I want to make sure that members of Congress on the Hill here and across the country understand how deeply and how broadly Americans have rejected Obamacare,” says King, who introduced repeal legislation in March.

    Hmm, funny you should say that on the day that new polling is out suggesting that the opposite is true.

    But as the House prepares to vote on repeal this week, public support for that has flagged. Only about 1 in 4 respondents said they wanted to do away with the law completely. Even among Republicans, repeal draws markedly less support than it did a few weeks ago: 49%, compared with 61% after the November election.
    Only 49% of Republicans want to repeal "Obamacare." Those are your guys. You don't even have a majority among your own guys.

    Referring to a new poll showing that strong opposition to Obamacare has fallen to its lowest level in more than a year, King explains: “I see different polls with different results. When you break it down, I’m still very confident that the American people reject Obamacare.

    I assume that you're referring to right-wing pollsters like Rasmussen who usually frame the question something like "Would you rather repeal Obamacare or have sex with a rabid wolverine?"
    "Would you favor repealing Obamacare knowing that if you do, you will be given your own Blackhawk helicopter and be made king of Spain?"
    "Do you support Obamacare and the beheading of kittens?"

    But real polls are showing what the AP poll referenced above shows. But I'm sure if you "break it down," you can convince yourself that the people really mean yes when they answer no.

    “One of the things is, should we require employers to provide certain benefits, and sometimes the answer is as high as 59 percent. But it’s job-destroying, and if you ask the question, if you knew your employer was going to have to lay off so many people or not open up a certain number of jobs, would you still want to impose this mandate on your employer, I think a lot of Americans would change their mind. I think we’ve already won the debate.”

    Yeah, see that's what we were just talking about. Of course you can get the answer you want if you phrase the question dishonestly. You can do that with anything. You could go to Pittsburgh and ask "Would you want the Steelers to win the Superbowl if it meant that they would celebrate by having wild sex with your wife?" and most guys, actually that's a bad example. I think Steelers fans would probably still say yes. 

    “And when it comes to something that is unconstitutional, that is a theft of the liberty of the American people, then [there is no] price tag we can put on it. It’s too valuable. Our liberty is priceless, and we cannot be the country that we shall become if we’re going to become the ever-expanded dependency class living in a nanny state. And that’s what Obamacare does to us.”

    "We can not be the country that we shall become if we're going to become the . . ." huh? Dang, that is some top-notch semi-coherence in the service of lies. It takes a real pro like Steve King to pull that off.
    It almost makes you not notice that he's full of shit about the Constitution, that there is absolutely nothing to his "dependency / nanny-state" claim, and that the whole liberty theft thing is pure nonsense. Only the great Steve King can give you this kind of bs/gibberish hybrid.

    You And Your Johnson

    (stolen from MPS)

    Monday, January 17, 2011

    The Teabaggers Have Principles!

    The Tea Party is all about small government. They don't think that the government should be running your life. Here are some of the principles they hold dear (from various Tea Party websites)

    All men are created equal.

    The proper role of government is to protect equal rights

      As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual

    The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.  

    etc, etc, etc. . .

    Yes, they are all about individual liberty. The government can't tell you how to live your life. You are the ultimate authority on how you live your life.

    Well, not you!

    Tea Party rally focuses in gay marriage in Iowa

    by Associated Press  ::  UPDATED: 15 January 2011 |

    COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa (AP) — About 35 people gathered for a Tea Party rally in Council Bluffs calling for a ban on gay marriage and stricter abortion laws in Iowa.

    Yeah, the power of government should totally be limited. Limited to deciding who can marry whom and whether or not women have to have babies. But other than that, they're total libertarians!

    And assholes. They're also assholes.


    This creepy-as-fuck old couple literally worship Sarah Palin.

    Where I come from, that would be considered a complete blasphemy. If those creeps had sung this in the church I grew up in, they would have been tossed out on their ears faster than you can say "excommunication."

    They got one thing right, though. It'll be a cold day in Hell when Sarah Palin gets to Washington.

    P.S. The all-time stupidest line ever written: "Sarah has the wisdom to walk through an open door." 
    How is that wisdom? What if the open door is the door to a crackhouse? What if it leads to the lion enclosure? What if it's the door to a dirty movie theater? Hmm? How much wisdom is required to walk through a door?

    Sunday, January 16, 2011

    Why do they keep doing this?

    Why do they keep asking Miss America contestants questions about subjects of import? Aren't they supposed to ask things like "how would you make the world a nicer place?" or "why do you love your home state?" or "your ass and a hole in the ground: compare and contrast."

    Does it not occur to them that someone whose career aspirations include strutting around half-naked to be judged like a calf at a county fair might not have the most well-reasoned, most clearly thought-out opinions on current affairs?

    And why would anyone be surprised when her answer to a question about Wikileaks is this word salad:

    "You know when it came to that situation, it was actually based on espionage, and when it comes to the security of our nation, we have to focus on security first and then people's right to know, because it's so important that everybody who's in our borders is safe and so we can't let things like that happen, and they must be handled properly," she said.
    (Chicago Tribune)

    You know, maybe she might have had less trouble with a generic question.

    Scanlan said the question was easier for her than a generic one, because she has routinely discussed current events with her family since she was young.

    Egads! Really?

    This might be a good time to point out that Ms Scanlan, who is probably a perfectly nice person, was homeschooled through 11th grade. So, yeah, another triumph, good going homeschoolers! And she has already been accepted to Patrick Henry College, which sounded impressive to me, until I googled it.

    The mission of Patrick Henry College, as adopted by the Board of Trustees September 28, 2002, is "to train Christian men and women who will lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values and fidelity to the spirit of the American founding. In order to accomplish this mission, the College provides academically excellent higher education with a biblical worldview using classical liberal arts core curriculum and apprenticeship methodology." The College's vision is "to aid in the transformation of American society by training Christian students to serve God and mankind with a passion for righteousness, justice and mercy, through careers of public service and cultural influence." [1]
    Uh-oh.  Sounds like Dominionism to me. Another triumph for homeschooling!

    The Kid Who Killed Cute

    If you were wondering what had happened to cute, this kid knocked it over the head, threw it in the trunk of his car, drove it out to the desert and put two in the back of its head, execution style. Then he violated the corpse.

    I think this is what happens when a couple of those "Toddlers and Tiaras" parents get stuck with a boy.

    Saturday, January 15, 2011

    Glam Cats

    Yeah! Work It!

    The Camera Loves You!

    Let's See That Attitude!

    You're A Superstar!

    You Own That Runway!


    DAMN! You Kitties are FIERCE!

    Friday, January 14, 2011

    Dumb and Dumber

    via Digby:

    Rep. Robert Brady, D-Pennsylvania, said he will introduce legislation making it a federal crime for a person to use language or symbols that could be perceived as threatening or inciting violence against a Member of Congress or federal official.

    "Could be perceived as threatening?"
    You know, it's already a crime to actually threaten a member of Congress.
    Seen these recent headlines?

    Palm Springs Man Arrested for Threatening Congressman

    Man Arrested in Denver for Threat to Shoot Aides to U.S. Senator Bennet

    Relatives Says Man Arrested For Threatening Democratic Senator Was ‘Under The Spell That Glenn Beck Cast’ 

    But using imagery that might be perceived as threatening? You want to make that a crime? Palin's cross-hairs map was irresponsible and in very bad taste, but it was NOT a crime. Her people have every right to be irresponsible and tasteless. That's called free speech. And when idiots like Rush Limbaugh start whining that people asking them to be more responsible in their rhetoric really means that the "left" is trying to censor or silence them, it makes it a lot harder to say "you're full of shit, Rush" when you propose an asinine law like this. 

      But wait! Someone has come up with an even stupider response to the Tucson shootings:

    Gohmert drafts bill to allow guns on House floor

    Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert says his office is drafting a measure to allow members of Congress to carry guns in the District of Columbia, including in the Capitol and on the House floor.
    Wow. You better hope B-1 Bob Dornan never gets re-elected.*

    Seriously, you really think Capitol Hill security isn't strong enough?


     And do you think that if some dangerous lunatic actually manages to make it past all this highly-trained, heavily-armed law enforcement personel, you're going to stop him? 


    sorry, wrong picture. 

    I mean. . .you?

    You're gonna take the criminal down with your Official Red Ryder Carbine-Action Two-Hundred-Shot Range Model Air Rifle? Think again, buddy boy. Or not "again," just think. Think.

    * Dornan made headlines in March 1985 for a confrontation with Representative Thomas DowneyD-NY) on the House floor. Downey asked Dornan about comments he had made calling Downey "a draft-dodging wimp". According to Downey, Dornan grabbed him by the collar and tie, said "It's good you're being protected by the sergeant-at-arms. If I saw you outside, it would be a different story," and threatened him "with some form of bodily harm". Dornan claimed he was merely straightening Downey's tie and refused to apologize for the incident or the derogatory comment. A Dornan aide said "It will be a cold day in hell before he gets an apology from Bob Dornan."[3]