Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Monday, November 28, 2011

Asshole of the Year

The current front-runner for this year's asshole of the year award is the former CEO of AIG,  Maurice "Hank" Greenberg.

If an asshole had an asshole, that asshole would look at Greenberg and think "Jeez, what an asshole!"

Ex-AIG CEO Suing U.S. for $25 Billion

  • 'Hank Greenberg
    Former AIG chief Maurice “Hank” Greenberg's current company has filed lawsuits accusing the government of taking valuable assets from AIG's shareholders without their consent or fair compensation.
    (Scott Eells, Bloomberg / November 10, 2011)
  • The suits accuse the government of taking valuable assets from AIG's shareholders without their consent or fair compensation, in exchange for the government's 80% stake in the company. The suit says the government's actions violate parts of the 5th Amendment.

Could there be a more perfect representative of the 1%? I drove my company into the ground so fucking hard that it threatened to take down the whole economy. It was so bad that you little tax-paying peons had to bail me out. Now I'm going to sue because I didn't get paid enough for my criminal mismanagement!

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Beware of Turkeys!!!


1. Sacrificed to Allah? Do Muslims even do animal sacrifice?  And if they do, would they really say "this turkey I sacrifice to you, oh great Allah. J/K, LOL! we're going to sell it to an infidel for Thanksgiving!
Gotcha, Allah!

2. How do you think that turkeys are normally killed? You don't think their tracheas and aortas are severed? You think they have some sort of humane lethal injection process or something?

3. Do you really think that Butterball employees are taking the time to recite an Islamic prayer every time they slaughter a turkey? You think Butterball turkeys aren't raised on factory farms and slaughtered on an assembly line? Do you have any idea what modern turkey farming looks like?


(hint: Not like this so much)

4. What if they really were? What if the Butterball people really were following halal butchering practices? How would that affect the eaters of the turkey? Wouldn't the cooking process kill any Muslim cooties that were in the bird?


I once ate a bagel, and look at me now!
--Chin Ho Pak

Monday, November 21, 2011


Welcome back the 'First Family of Fright'
Welcome back the 'First Family of Fright'

America's first family of horror is back! According to announcements made by NBC execs and Deadline Hollywood, The Munsters are coming back to primetime TV.

Dear God, why?
Who wants to see this? Who has been clamoring for a re-make of the Munsters? You know the original series only lasted TWO YEARS!
And the only remotely enjoyable facet of the show died in 2006.

Probably still the best part of the new version

45-years later, NBC and writer Bryan Fuller are ready to overhaul the characters and concept by envisioning the half-hour, black and white sitcom as an hour-long drama 

An hour-long drama? An hour-long Drama? if anyone is at all interested in seeing a re-make of the Munsters, wouldn't be because they enjoyed the original half-hour sitcom?

If only this had been darker and edgier!

As is the trend, Fuller’s version is said to be a darker, edgier take on more lighthearted nature of the original series. This new vision for The Munsters will work within the confines of the same premise, despite an apparent shift in tone and with some tweaks to the characters and their origins.
Hey, great idea! Or you could just, I don't know, come up with an original idea? Seeing as how you're in  a business that's supposed to be "creative"?

Is there anything left to be re-made?

Woody Woodpecker Movie in Development at Universal, Illumination

Oh, come on!

Illumination Entertainment, the Universal-based animation house behind Despicable Me and next year’s Dr. Seuss’ The Lorax, is working on a feature project centering on the crimson-coifed cartoon character. John Altschuler and Dave Krinsky, who co-wrote the Will Ferrell comedy Blades of Glory, are in talks to develop a story.

So you couldn't make a movie with Will Ferrell, Will Arnett, Amy Poehler and Craig T. Nelson funny, and you're going to do the new Woody Woodpecker? Good luck with that!

Illumination and the writers will seek to create a story that modernizes the character, hopefully launching a franchise in the process.

Modernizing the character? What does that mean exactly? Because I have a sneaking suspicion that it's going to look something like this:



(via the Daily What)

You really think you can capitalize on this?
I don't know whether to feel disgust or pity.

Sunday, November 20, 2011

Bad Ads -- Capital One

The first problem with this ad is that it features Jimmy Fallon.


Pop quiz - when was the last time Jimmy Fallon was funny?

Trick question, he was never funny.

Seriously, is there any celebrity more annoying than Jimmy Fallon? How is this the guy you want representing your product? What, was Snookie unavailable? Jack Black have a prior commitment?  Jimmy Fallon? Ugh!

Then, there's a joke. It's not what you would call a "funny" joke, necessarily, but by credit card commercial standards, it's not terrible. "If you don't want the extra money, send it to me." Okay, that's not going to win any prizes, but it's fine. If you just leave it there. But no. No, Fallon has to beat it into the ground. And then, he has this kinda racist sounding line "I'll make it rain up in hyah!"
Seriously, listen to the ad and tell me it doesn't make you uncomfortable.

It's one thing to say "make it rain." It's an expression that began with the hip-hop set, but it's not like white people don't use the phrase too. That's fine, but "up in here?" That's starting to sound a little sketchy, and pronouncing the word "here" as "hyah" or "hyar" or whatever, that's straying into Amos & Andy territory.

Why would you have him say that? Even if you had no racist intentions, how do you not hear that and say "Hey, Jimmy, just say 'I'll make it rain.' Don't try to sound like Def Comedy Jam.."

Am I wrong?

Even if I am totally off-base on the racial thing, there's still no excuse for subjecting us to Jimmy Fallon.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Schlafly's Eagle Forum disgustingly sticks up for Penn State child-rapist

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Mandated reporting of suspicion

 The sex abuse scandal at Penn State University, which this month led to the firing of storied football coach Joe Paterno and other prominent university officials who did not report the alleged crimes to law enforcement, raises fresh questions about the legal and moral responsibilities of K-12 personnel who are more likely to be in a position to detect physical or sexual abuse of a child.


No. No it doesn't. There are no new questions. If you detect abuse of a child, you either call the police, or kick the shit out of the abuser and then call the police. What new questions could this case possibly raise?

Experts say most states have clear laws requiring K-12 teachers and other school employees to swiftly and directly report suspicions of abuse to police or child-protection authorities, but there are complex reasons why these so-called “mandatory reporters” may fail to take action.
“I think one of the major impediments to people reporting their suspicions is that they think they have to have more evidence that abuse is occurring,”

Um, in the Penn State case, the guy walked in on a man raping a little boy. Do you really think that he failed to report the rape because he wasn't sure he had enough evidence?

Traditional British and American law does not require citizens to report crimes that they witness. We are not a nation of snitches. If your neighbor is illegally smoking dope, you do not have to say a word.

Totally the same thing. Smoking pot, raping children, neither one is really anyone elses's business.

Penn State officials have been charged with a crime for not reporting a similar allegation against Sandusky in 2002. The entire case hinges on the memory and credibility of McQueary, but now he has changed his story and says that he reported it to the police. There is no physical or other hard evidence of abuse. According to Sandusky, the child involved will testify that McQueary is lying about what he claimed to have seen.

And if you can't believe Sandusky, who can you believe? I mean, seriously, who knows more about Sandusky's child-raping than Sandusky?

The mandatory reporting law is a direct attack on the autonomy of the American family. 

Holy Gawd! How, I mean why,  I mean what the fuck? How is this an attack on the family? Other than the fact that pretty much everything is an attack on the family in your world.

The mandatory reporting law is a direct attack on the autonomy of the American family. Many parents have practices that provoke the disapproval of others. All it takes is one anonymous call to CPS, and a govt social worker will knock on the door and threaten to put the kids in foster care. There is no due process. The upshot is that know-nothing social workers are redefining how American children are to be reared, and this is a change for the worse.

So the mandatory reporting law is an attack on  parents' right to abuse  their children? This is your family values?
And by the way, CPS doesn't just grab up children willy-nilly and toss them into foster care. Have you ever seen Judge Judy? Every other case is someone suing because the other person called CPS and filed fake complaints, and none of those false complaints ever lead to the children being taken away.

I would not be surprised if this Penn State witch-hunt concludes by the state paying millions of dollars in bogus lawsuits, and no one found guilty of anything. Plus a horrible new anti-family law. 

Wow! So what I'm getting here is that in the eyes of the Eagle Forum, it's better that child-rape go unreported than parent lose their child-beating rights.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

Fun With the Op-Ed Page

Kathleen Parker

Kathleen Parker
Opinion Writer

Perry, Cain and a parade of painful moments

Admit it. You miss Sarah Palin just a little: The wink, the red shoes, the pointing finger, the heck-with-ya attitude and, given the performance of some of her Republican colleagues, her Taser-like intelligence. 

Yes, her intelligence is Taser-like, in that the Taser is an inanimate object that requires a handler to operate it.

It helped — a lot — that Palin was an attractive woman. A man winks during a debate for the highest or second-highest office in the land, and he’s not cute or flirty — or sending sparks ricocheting around the living rooms of conservative magazine editors. He’s an idiot. 

Um, the same rule applies to women, no matter how attractive. Being "cute" or "flirty" while running to be the second-in-command of the most pwerful nation on Earth is just plain idiotic, no matter how many right-wing boners it inspires.

Even a presidential candidate suffers no dishonor by sometimes admitting he doesn’t know an answer. Giving Cain credit to the limited extent due, he has made clear that he doesn’t know every little thing but has promised to hire smart people who do.

Oh, no. We fell for that once.

Never again.

The Second Coming of Gingrich

When Newt Gingrich kicked off his presidential campaign in May by criticizing Congressman Paul Ryan’s Medicare reforms as “right-wing social engineering,” thus incurring the wrath of the very conservatives that he presumably needed to win over, there was a rush to write the former House speaker’s political obituary. . .

. . . We all laughed at this here in Washington, swirling our martinis and nibbling our canap├ęs at our fancy cocktail parties. But who’s laughing now? 

Um, pretty much everybody.

True, Gingrich’s rise in the polls may be temporary. There’s still time for Rick Santorum or even Jon Huntsman to surge, or for Ron Paul to expand his support beyond his small, fierce circle of admirers.

Also, there's still time for Lincoln to come back from the grave and throw his stovepipe hat into the ring, and that's just about as likely.  Come on, Rick Santorum?

I'm Surging! This is what I look like when I'm surging!
Charles Krauthammer

Charles Krauthammer
Opinion Writer

Who lost Iraq?

Barack Obama was a principled opponent of the Iraq war from its beginning. But when he became president in January 2009, he was handed a war that was won. 

And once you've won a war, the sensible thing to do is stop fighting it. Unless you're Charles Krauthammer.

The surge had succeeded. Al-Qaeda in Iraq had been routed, driven to humiliating defeat by an Anbar Awakening of Sunnis fighting side-by-side with the infidel Americans. Even more remarkably, the Shiite militias had been taken down, with U.S. backing, by the forces of Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. They crushed the Sadr militias from Basra to Sadr City. Al-Qaeda decimated. A Shiite prime minister taking a decisively nationalist line. Iraqi Sunnis ready to integrate into a new national government. 

An entire country of flowers and kittens. Shia and Sunni holding hands and just in love with America, oh it was grand!

(artist's rendition, Iraq 2008)

Obama was left with but a single task: Negotiate a new status-of-forces agreement (SOFA) to reinforce these gains and create a strategic partnership with the Arab world’s only democracy.
He blew it.

Goddammit, he blew our chance to have our soldiers stay in that godforsaken hell-hole in perpetuity?


Oh, and it should probably be mentioned that the Palestinians have a democracy, even if you don't like who they vote for.

He blew it. Negotiations, such as they were, finally collapsed last month. There is no agreement, no partnership. As of Dec. 31, the U.S. military presence in Iraq will be liquidated.

In other words, our boys are coming home? What a tragedy!

And it’s not as if that deadline snuck up on Obama. He had three years to prepare for it. Everyone involved, Iraqi and American, knew that the 2008 SOFA calling for full U.S. withdrawal was meant to be renegotiated.

Really? Says who? Why would we make a deal not intending to honor it?

Don't get me started!

Now it's starting to make sense

Update: 'Occupy' crackdowns coordinated with federal law enforcement officials

When the Oakland PD attacked the occupiers, I didn't get it. Why such an insane overreaction? Why would the police department of Oakland, a city synonymous with violent crime, the world headquarters of the Hell's Angels, need to bring in backup from the Alameda County Sheriff's Dept, the California Highway Patrol, and officers from the police departments of neighboring cities to deal with a group of non-violent protestors who, at worst, were trespassing, or creating a "public nuisance?" Why tear gas and rubber bullets? It's Oakland. They get a lot scarier when the Raiders lose the Super Bowl:


So why go full-force stormtrooper on a bunch of people sleeping in a park?

Over the past ten days, more than a dozen cities have moved to evict "Occupy" protesters from city parks and other public spaces. As was the case in last night's move in New York City, each of the police actions shares a number of characteristics. And according to one Justice official, each of those actions was coordinated with help from Homeland Security, the FBI and other federal police agencies.

Now it makes sense. Homeland Security. Remember how this new Homeland Security apparatus was put in place just to protect us from the terrorists? Nothing to worry about, just keepin' the Homeland safe from scary Muslims! It certainly would never be turned on our own citizens, and definitely was not the beginning of a police state or anything!

According to this official, in several recent conference calls and briefings, local police agencies were advised to seek a legal reason to evict residents of tent cities, focusing on zoning laws and existing curfew rules. Agencies were also advised to demonstrate a massive show of police force, including large numbers in riot gear. In particular, the FBI reportedly advised on press relations, with one presentation suggesting that any moves to evict protesters be coordinated for a time when the press was the least likely to be present.
Or, in the case of the Freedom Plaza evacuation, just keep the press away all together.

(During  coverage of the eviction of the Occupy Wall Street protesters early this morning, a NPR reporter, a New York Times reporter, and a city councilmember were arrested. Airspace in Lower Manhattan was closed to CBS and NBC news choppers by the NYPD, a New York Post reporter was allegedly put in a “choke hold” by the police, a NBC reporter’s press pass was confiscated and a large group of reporters and protesters were hit with pepper spray.)

Hey, Lady's. . .

The Skilboski would like you to follow him



into his windowless van.

What could go wrong?

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

David Barton is not good at understanding things.


It's been well established that "historian" David Barton doesn't understand history. That's why he's Glenn Beck's favorite "historian." Turns out, he doesn't understand Christianity either, which wouldn't be a big deal if he wasn't a Christian Dominionist.

Barton: Look at Jesus. I mean, Jesus in the Parable of the Talents in Matthew 25 and the Minas in Luke 19, you know he lines the guys all up and says "I gave you an investment, what did you do with it? 'I did nothing with it.' 'I gave you, what you'd do?' "I turned five-fold.' 'I gave you, what you'd do?' 'I turned ten-fold.'" He says "Okay, take away from the guy who didn't do anything with the investment and give it to the guy who had ten."
Whoa, that's not fair! Jesus said "to him who has will more be given, to him who has not will be taken away even that which he has."

Green: I think the message version of that says to the one that's picketing down on Wall Street and not working, we're taking from you now and we're going to give it to the Wall Street guy.

Barton: You're not productive. We're ain't giving [to] you if you're not productive and that's the message. The way it's supposed to work is if you're productive, it's going to trickle down to you. But if you think the guy who had ten is going to trickle down to the guy who didn't do anything with his one, Jesus says it's not going to happen that way.
It does not trickle down. As as matter of fact, it will trickle up. If you are not productive, I'm going to give it to someone who is and he's going to get more.

Of course, anyone who knows anything about Jesus knows that he isn't actually talking about money in this parable.  A parable is basically an extended metaphor. He's talking about people using their skills or talents to recruit new members to Christianity. Because when Jesus actually talks about money literally, he says things like:

Matthew 19:21-22: "Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou
hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven

You cannot serve both God and Money."

-Matthew 6:24

'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'"

-Matthew 19:23-24

And he would answer and say to them, “The man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise.” 

-Luke 3:11

Give to everyone who asks of you, and whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back.

 -Luke 6:30

You know, all that hippie, socialist stuff.
Taking away from the poor and giving to the rich?
This guy?


It's okay, little lambie. I'm going to give you to a wealthy banker!


Monday, November 14, 2011

Why is this lunatic allowed on TV?

This is just from the last couple of days:

Bachmann: The ACLU Is Running The CIA Under Obama



And they're both stealing my thoughts and putting words in my brain!

"[Obama] is allowing the ACLU to run the CIA" Bachmann asserted. "We have decided we are going to lose the war on terror under Obama."

It's almost impressive, how she's able to come up with this stuff.

Then there's this little exchange from Meet the Press:

MR. GREGORY: No, no, let me just make the point. Your view that waterboarding should be reinstituted, you understand that puts you at odds with most of the generals, OK, the former Republican nominee of your party John McCain, General Colin Powell. You realize you're on the opposite end of what they believe? Do you not trust them and their views?

REP. BACHMANN: Well, but what, but I, but I'm on the same side as Vice President Cheney on this issue, and others as well. Because, I, again, what we're looking at is what will save American lives. And that's what the most important thing is. We've got, we've got to decide that we want to defeat the terrorists.


Hey, I'm on the same side as a disgusting, evil bag of scum who knows nothing about the subject!

And the topper:

I believe that Iraq should pay us back for the money that we spent. And I believe that Iraq should pay the families that lost a loved one several million dollars per life...
MR. GREGORY: All right.
REP. BACHMANN: ...I think, at minimum. 

I must remember to send Fat Tony a check!

Aaaaand, she thinks we should be more like China.

She has a point. Those are some snappy uniforms.

Bachmann added: "If you look at China, they don't have food stamps. If you look at China, they're in a very different situation. They save for their own retirement security... They don't have the modern welfare state and China's growing. And so what I would do is look at the programs that LBJ gave us with the Great Society and they'd be gone."

So on the one hand, we'd lose Medicare, Medicaid and the Consumer Protection Agency. On the other hand, we'd have, um. . . a great leap forward? 

By the way, how's that whole "saving for their own retirement" thing working out for ya, China?

An elderly Chinese woman collects scraps of wood for cooking, near the Yangtze river city of Jiujiang. (Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images) 

Yeah, that looks way better than foodstamps!

Michele Bachmann is a national fucking disgrace.

Why do people keep giving her a platform?