Wednesday, May 30, 2012

R.I.P., Doc.

The greatest flatpicker to ever pick up a guitar, Doc Watson, passed away last night.

And the world is a poorer place because of it.

Of course, he could fingerpick too if he had a mind to.

OK, that was weird.

Blogger shut down my account for a day.

Apparently, there was some sort of "unusual activity?"

Anyway, I'm back now!

Monday, May 28, 2012

Carly Fiorinna is an expert?

(via C&L)

Carly Fiorina on the Meet the Press panel:
I find the attack surprising from many perspectives. First of all, capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system in the history of the world. The way you do that is with a job. Third, successful companies create jobs. 
 Failing companies destroy jobs.  

"Take me, for example," she did not continue, "I failed spectacularly at HP and I destroyed all kinds of jobs!"

"Also, please continue to book me on your TV shows as an economy expert," she did not conclude.

Congratulations, You're Engaged to a Gay Man!

Which would be great if you were also a gay man, but since you are a lady, not so much.

This seriously isn't a truckload of red flags for you?

So none of these dozens of people realized what a terrible idea this was?

How is the only possible answer to this not "I'm sorry but no, I will not marry you, and I think we should see other people, bye!"

Also, I see Oregon plates in the beginning, so I'm starting to think maybe Portlandia is a documentary.

Friday, May 25, 2012

Oh, this is not going to end well.

Or maybe it ends really really well, depending on your point of view.

A camp for sports and avoiding gay sex

May 24, 2012|By Kathy Boccella

This weekend a group of men will gather at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary to how learn to throw a spiral, make a three-point shot and hit a long ball — and to resist homosexual urges.
Courage, a Catholic group that encourages people with same-sex attraction to remain celibate, is holding its 13th annual sports camp in which “men physically compete on the field while enriching their souls through a daily regimen of prayer, confessions, mass, and the Liturgy of the Hours,” according to the group’s website.

Oh my God. What better way for a gay man to remain celibate than by spending time in a locker room with other fit, sweaty gay men?


I know I'm even straighter now, having seen this picture.

 The member, who asked not to be identified, said the weekend was a “tutorial sports event” and “not some sort of brainwashing camp that tries to make someone into something they’re not.”

Oh, a tutorial. So, I guess it would go something like this:

Step 1: Put on your super-hetero pants.

Step 2: Be sure to stretch first, to avoid injury.


Take as long as you need, stretching is important.

Step 3: Don't be afraid to play rough. You're not a sissy, are you?

Step 4: Hit the showers!

You know what, maybe sports wasn't the best idea.


Tucker Carlson doesn't seem to realize what network he's on

Because he says this on FOX:

How do you sit there in the FOX studio and wonder why don't conservatives start their own media outlets?

Oh, right. These people live in an alternate universe in which President Obama is a bomb-throwing radical leftist and conservatives have no voice.

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Faith and Freedom?

Why do they always use words like "freedom" and "liberty?"

They always call themselves things like "Liberty Council" or "The Religious Freedom Coalition," or some such nonsense.

 What "freedoms" or :liberties" do they supposedly support?

The freedom of same-sex couples to marry?   Not on your life!

The freedom of women to control their own reproductive stuff?    Hah! Good one!

The freedom of adults to smoke pot or do whatever they do with other drugs?    Get real!

They certainly don't support the freedom of Muslims to build mosques in NYC. They don't support the freedom from warrantless wiretapping, as long as their guy is running the program anyway.

So is it just cynical marketing, like they know they don't support freedom just like McDonalds knows that their food doesn't taste good, but who's going to buy it if they admit that?

Or do they just have a different definition of freedom than us normal people?

I think they really do stand up for freedom, just not the kind of freedom a sane person should want. They believe in the freedom of the strong to oppress the weak, the rich to oppress the poor, the corporation to oppress human beings. And that's why they always tout "small government," because government interferes with that.

They stand for the freedom of insurance companies to deny you coverage.
They stand for the freedom of power companies to spew coal smoke into our air.
They stand for the freedom of straight kids to bully the gay kids.
They support the freedom of employers to pay you whatever wage they damn well want to.
And they support the freedom of those employers to create unsafe working conditions if they feel like it.
They support the freedom of agri-business to give you salmonella in your eggs.

So, yeah. Faith & Freedom, why the hell not?

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Good Heavens, I've been cited!

Someone has cited me in a footnote!

And yes, that person does appear to be an imbecile of some sort, or maybe a lunatic.

The article in which I am cited is entitled:

It’s cool to be in the Brother-hood

(the "brotherhood" in question being the Masonic, Satanic, Jewish Nazi conspiracy thing)

And here is what it is about:

The gradual increase in Masonic symbolism being constantly seen in mainstream advertising, and that the public’s own interest, – especially so amongst the younger generations in this subject seems to be growing at a rapid rate.  No doubt Hollywood films, the music industry, TV programmes and authors such as Dan Brown and his books; The Da Vinci Code and The Lost Symbol, and other many hundreds of films such as, – though it must be said it’s predominately about werewolves and vampires, it still has an New Moon Rising underlining current of the occult, aspects of Freemasonry-the brotherhood and its symbolism in particular prevails throughout it.

(I did not edit that paragraph. That is precisely how the author wrote it. I swear.)

Any way, several paragraphs later, you get this:

So here we have this constant odd theme, that on one hand appears to be in opposition, i.e. ‘Nazi/Fascism v All things Jewish’, when in fact they appear to be in unison; sending out subliminal messages in different directions, yet meeting up at the same destination; ‘Freemasonry’. [3]

And footnote # 3?

 [3] “The Daily Irritant: How to Become A Music Star. .

I couldn't be prouder!

And I think it's about time that I be cited in serious academic research! After all, who better to quote on the subject of Freemasonry than some dork with a blogspot account who named himself after a cartoon character? Obviously, someone like that must have some pretty astute insight!
Hey, wait. That's not funny.

Anyway, if you're interested in learning about all the secrets of the New World Order or whatever, the best source to consult is a post I tossed up there in Jan, 2010:

Monday, May 21, 2012

Free Rap Boasts

Featuring special guest Flava Flaaaaaaaaaaav!!!!!

For years, rappers have been searching for comparisons to illustrate how mad are their skills. The boasts usually go something like this:

I've got more action than my man John Woo
And I've got mad hits like I was Rod Carew
--Beastie Boys, Sure Shot

I'm sure they must be running out by now, so I've come up with a few to help out. Aspiring rappers, feel free to incorporate these into your songs:

I got more beats than my man Slim Shady
And I rock the Mike like I was Carol Brady!

Aww, yeah! She always rocked Mike's world!

Okay, how about this:

My rhymes are so fierce you gotta run for shelter
And I give more speeches that Cato the Elder!

Yeah, Boyeeee! 2nd Century BC!

I'm known as a man of indeterminate  gender
And I sit in more freezers than Murray Lender!

Uh huh, uh huh, bagels yo!

Okay, here's another good one:

 I'm strong on defense just like Robert Gates
And I bust more rhymes than William Yeats!

Yeh, yeh yeh, pronounced "Yates" not "Yeets, " suckas!

Or try this on for size:

I got mother issues like Norman Bates
And I run the firm like I was Larry Tate!


Yeeeeeh, Larry Tate! The original Mad Man!

Okay, one more:

Like Jimmy Boeheim, I'm workin' the refs
And I get more young tail than Warren Jeffs.

Nah, man. Not cool.

Just no.

Saturday, May 19, 2012

So how many bands did you see for free today?

Me? Oh, just 2+1/2!

We went to the Kirkwood Spring Fling today and saw Blair Crimmins & the Hookers and Noot d' Noot for free. We also caught the last couple songs from the Deadfields.

Check 'em out:

The Turd Doesn't Fall Far From the Ass

Apparently, someone mated with the odious Phylis Schlafly at some point, because she has a son. A loathsome, despicable son.

Either Roger Schlafly or a mugshot of a drifter.

And this repugnant, repulsive son of hers also hates the Violence Against Women Act.  (I know, I was totally surprised, too!)

Friday, May 18, 2012
What VAWA is about
AP reports:

    WASHINGTON (AP) - House Republicans set up a showdown Wednesday with the Senate and President Barack Obama over legislation to protect women from domestic violence, a fight that's become as much about female voters this election year as cracking down on abuse. ...  [ellipsis in original]

Okay, to be fair, so far he's just quoting the AP. It's not actually his fault that the AP reporter is being a dick. But the rest of this is absolutely his fault.

    "The man I married had a penchant for drinking and was very violent when he drank," the bill's sponsor, freshman Rep. Sandy Adams, R-Fla., said during floor debate.

Really? Is that what the law is about? Is VAWA going to somehow use federal law to protect women from marrying men who like to get drunk and crazy?

Really, it's more about helping women to get away from that sort of man, which is not at all frivolous, so don't be so shitty.

    Wisconsin Democrat Gwen Moore recalled what it was like to try to press charges against her rapist in the days before the law's passage.

    "I took him to court (but) indeed, I was on trial," Moore said. "I had to prove, as a victim, that I was not being fraudulent in my accusations. They brought up how I was an unwed mother with a baby. Maybe I seduced him. They talked about how I was dressed."

So she testified in court that a man raped her, but did not want to answer questions about whether she seduced the man. She wants a federal law to presume that men are guilty so that female accusers do not have to answer embarrassing questions.

Because if your house is burglarized, you should have to prove that you did not invite the man in to your home and ask him to haul away your excess possessions.

He was totally into it!

 And by the way, asking a woman whether she seduced her rapist is not exactly an "embarrassing question." It's more of an insulting, degrading humiliating slap in the face to someone who has already been through more than anyone should have to bear. You piece of shit.

Another hot VAWA issue is visas:

    Ronan * and his allies argue that there's what he calls a "big national fraud" in which immigrant women claim to be abuse victims in order to gain residency or citizenship through the act, which can offer women permanent residency if they testify against abusive husbands.

    The Violence Against Women Act actually offers two avenues for victims of abuse to seek immigration relief. Women in the US illegally can currently seek temporary visas if they are victims of domestic violence.

More and more foreign women are getting permanent USA visas by making unverified accusations of abuse. We have an immigration policy that favors liars and whiners. 
*I don't know who Ronan is, he's not mentioned anywhere else in this column.

Holy fuck! 

Liars and whiners? I don't even. . .
Let's start with liars. Do you really think that women are lying about being victims of abuse and/or rape? Yes, I know there have been a miniscule number of instances, but come on. Don't you think that most women have at least seen an episode of Law & Order and have some idea of what a rape trial is like? Do you think that they don't know that first the prosecutor asks her to "please describe the horrific, degrading trauma that you went through in comprehensive detail while the perpetrator leers at you." And then the defense attorney steps up and asks "but aren't you really a huge slut?" Do you really think someone is going to put herself through all that if the charges are bogus?

I have sworn affidavits from your college boyfriends. 
Let me read them one by one,  you big whore!

And whiners?Seriously, whiners? So, women should what, just keep a stiff upper lip if they're being beaten? Where is this idea coming from, that men ought to be able to knock their wives around without them getting all whiny about it?

Of course this is the same prick that was all in a panic about not enough white babies, or too many brown babies or something:

Eagle Forum Legislative Alert: 
Thursday, May 17, 2012

America is becoming non-white
For decades, the NY Times has been promoting immigration policies that heavily favored a huge influx of non-whites.  [citation needed] Today's lead story brags:

    WASHINGTON — After years of speculation, estimates and projections, the Census Bureau has made it official: White births are no longer a majority in the United States.
Bragging, making a simple factual statement, tomato/tomahto!

The article goes on to quote experts who say that this is a wonderful thing, except for the facts that the Hispanic immigrants are uneducated and do not vote Democrat often enough. 

What the fuck article did he read?
Here is what the Times article says about voting:

But there are bright spots. Arturo Vargas, executive director of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials, said the immigration debate of recent years has raised the political consciousness of young Latinos and he is hopeful that more will become politically active as a result. Only half of eligible Latino voters cast ballots in 2008, he said, compared with 65 percent of eligible non-Hispanic voters. “

That's it. That is the only mention of voting in the entire article. Nowhere does it say anything about party affiliation.

It is not a good thing. The immigrants do not share American values, so it is a good bet that they will not be voting Republican when they start voting in large numbers. 

Wow, so many things wrong with that sentence. First, they don't share American values? That's why they risk life and limb to come here, leaving family and friends behind, to come to a country whose values they oppose? Does that make a lick of sense to you? 
Also, what American values would cause them to vote Republican? The value of running gargantuan deficits  while preaching fiscal responsibility? The value of invading foreign countries for no good goddamned reason? The value of declaring habeus corpus optional and torture legal? Maybe the American value of keeping birth control out of the hands of women while opposing programs to help victims of domestic abuse? Those American values? 

The NY Times liberals seek to destroy the American family of the 1950s, as symbolized by Ozzie and Harriet. The TV characters were happy, self-sufficient, autonomous, law-abiding, honorable, patriotic, hard-working, and otherwise embodied qualities that made America great. In other words, the show promoted values that NY Times liberals despise.

Ah, yes. The fine liberals of the New York Times

Mr. Brooks joined The Weekly Standard at its inception in September 1995, having worked at The Wall Street Journal for the previous nine years.


Ross Douthat joined The New York Times as an Op-Ed columnist in April 2009. He is the co-author, with Reihan Salam, of "Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream. He is the film critic for National Review.

Instead, the USA is being transformed by immigrants who do not share those values, and who have high rates of illiteracy, illegitimacy, and gang crime, and they will vote Democrat when the Democrats promise them more food stamps.

Nothing racist here, folks. Move along.

Update: This post was criticized by two left-wing blogs, the Daily Kos and Right Wing Watch. Apparently they like it when the NY Times celebrates Ozzie and Harriet no longer being a national archetype, but they are upset when I express a contrary view. Why do they hate Ozzie and Harriet so much? Draw your own conclusions. I say that they despise the mere concept of a national archetype that extols traditional American values.

Um, "fuck them Mexicans" is not exactly a "contrary view."

Thursday, May 17, 2012

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Bauer Says Obama's Support for Gay Rights Shows he isn't 'Fighting for the Little Guy'

Yeah, those guys are huge!

They STILL have not renewed the Violence Against Women Act

How is this not a fucking no-brainer?

I guess when there are still women around like Phylis Schlafly. . .

Still alive.
(or so she claims)

Here's why Schlafly's repugnant little group opposes the act:

by Phyllis Schlafly 

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), now up for reauthorization, is in major need of revision. Its billion-dollar-a-year price tag spent by the radical feminists to pursue their ideology and goals (known as feminist pork) make it an embarrassment to Members of Congress who voted for it. 
"Feminist pork?"  Oh, come on! You made that up.


Ooooookay, then. . . .

For 30 years, the feminists have been pretending that their goal is to abolish all sex discrimination, eliminating all gender differences no matter how reasonable. When it comes to domestic violence, however, feminist dogma preaches that there is an innate gender difference: men are naturally batterers and women are naturally victims (i.e., gender profiling).

Starting with its title, VAWA is just about as sex discriminatory as legislation can get. It is written and implemented to oppose the abuse of women and to punish men. 

Yeah, what kind of an asshole would want to oppose the abuse of women? Other than anyone with a shred of human decency? 
And no one has suggested that men are naturally beaters or that women are naturally victims. They just want to stop those men who are abusers from abusing those women who are victims. Just like we have laws against robbing banks. That doesn't mean that banks are naturally robbable or that everyone who is not a bank is a born bank robber.

Ignoring the mountain of evidence that women initiate physical violence nearly as often as men, VAWA has more than 60 passages in its lengthy text that exclude men from its benefits. For starters, the law's title should be changed to Partner Violence Reduction Act, and the words "and men" should be added to those 60 sections. 

Did I mention that this article was written by a putative woman?

Women who make domestic violence accusations are not required to produce evidence and are never prosecuted for perjury if they lie. Accused men are not accorded fundamental protections of due process, not considered innocent until proven guilty, and in many cases, are not afforded the right to confront their accusers.
Legal assistance is customarily provided to women but not to men.  
Does this phrase sound familiar? ". . .if you can not afford an attorney, one will be provided to you. . ." Gawd, watch a Law & Order once, would you?

The way the Duke Lacrosse players' reputations and college education were destroyed is typical of feminist control of university attitudes. The prosecutor who falsely accused the men was disbarred, but there were no sanctions against the professors and college administrators who rushed to public judgment against the guys. 

Because people should totally be punished for having opinions? 
And by the way, they may not have committed rape, but those guys were racist assholes. Oh, I suppose I must be punished now!

And if it was just Schlafly, you could sort of accept that there was one incredibly self-loathing nutso woman out there, but of course it's not. There are also the "Concerned Women for America" who have this to say:
It is astounding that the left's "war on woman" has some senators afraid to oppose a bad bill simply because it's titled, "The Violence Against Women Act."

This legislation, which is normally a boondoggle for feminists groups, has become even more political this Congress.

A boondoggle for feminist groups? What does that even mean? I don't think you know what the word "boondoggle" means.

[boon-dog-uhl, -daw-guhl]  noun, verb, boon·dog·gled,
1. a product of simple manual skill, as a plaited leather cord for the neck or a knife sheath, made typically by a camper or a scout.
2. work of little or no value done merely to keep or look busy.
3. a project funded by the federal government out of political favoritism that is of no real value to the community or the nation.

You really think programs to help women who are victims of domestic violence is any of those things?
You really think those programs have no value to the community?

The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), S. 1925, creates new protections for homosexuals. 

And you seriously object to that. Really. You object to homosexual people being protected from violence. Are you really that despicable an excuse for a human being? Oh, right. Never mind.

In order to receive federal grants, domestic violence organizations have to agree to embrace the homosexual agenda.

Really? They have to embrace something that doesn't exist?
What do you think their "agenda" is? I'm pretty sure it goes something like this:

Item 1: Be treated like human beings with full citizenship rights.

Item 2: Mojitos!

It also expands categories of who is eligible to receive services.

These broad definitions actually squander the resources for victims of actual violence by failing to properly prioritize and assess victims. 

If we don't prioritize victims, how can we be sure which victims are actually deserving of help?


These assholes just go around helping everybody willy-nilly.

According to Dr. Janice Crouse, Senior Fellow of Concerned Women for America's Beverly LaHaye Institute, VAWA currently does not address the 30 items on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's list of risk factors for intimate partner violence.

Really? Like which ones? Which of the 30 items are not addressed? How about one example?


 Schlafly and a bunch of other sickos recently signed their name to this sickening letter:

We, the undersigned, representing millions of Americans nationwide, are writing today to oppose the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). This nice-sounding bill is deceitful because it destroys the family by obscuring real violence in order to promote the feminist agenda. 

How is "real violence" being obscured? They don't say. And why is domestic violence not "real violence?" They also don't say.

VAWA has morphed into a series of rigid and ineffective law enforcement programs that continue to spend approximately $400 million each year. Angela Moore Parmley, Ph.D., from the Department of Justice, wrote in Violence Against Women, Vol. 10, No. 12, 2004, p. 1424, “We have no evidence to date that VAWA has led to a decrease in the overall levels of violence against women.”

Also, banks still get robbed, so we shouldn't have laws about that either.

There is no denying the very real problem of violence against women and children. However, the programs promoted in VAWA are harmful for families. VAWA often encourages the demise of the family as a means to eliminate violence.

Yeah, Goddamm right it does! If there is domestic abuse the least that should happen is the abuser loses his family. Hopefully the divorce papers will be served to him in his prison cell. 
Why would keeping an abuser and his victim(s) together as a family be anyone's goal here? I don't even get it. Your "family values" include making women stay with men who beat them? That is just sick.

Further, this legislation continues to use overly broad definitions of domestic violence. These broad definitions actually squander the resources for victims of actual violence by failing to properly prioritize and assess victims. Victims who can show physical evidence of abuse should be our primary focus.

Like they say in basketball, no blood, no foul! If there isn't at least a black eye, then that violence just isn't real enough to care about. As long as the abuser limits himself to open-handed slaps, or smothering with pillows, or. I don't know, waterboarding? then the Concerned Women for America just aren't really all that concerned.

This VAWA bill continues the gross constitutional abuses of the past. It also proposes to add expensive new programs, such as one that would serve to “re-educate” school children into domestic violence ideology (Section 302, authorized at $15 million a year).

What "constitutional abuses?" They don't say. But if you're going to start "re-educating" children into thinking that domestic violence is bad, well that's pretty much Stalinist Russia right there.


Monday, May 14, 2012

Man to Set Record for Being World's Biggest Douche

Man attempts to set world record fist-pumping 17 hours straight

A 34-year-old unemployed [You don't say! -ed] man from Ohio attempted to set a Guinness World Record over the weekend by fist pumping for 17 hours straight.

  James Peterson began the attempt on Friday morning, according to the Akron Beacon Journal, and was scheduled to end at 3 a.m. local time Saturday. Peterson, a self-described fist-pumping "veteran," was accompanied by a pair of videographers on his quest for the record--which included stops at bars in and around the Univ. of Akron.

A fist-pumping veteran? Is that really a thing?


Oh, God, he looks like Joe the Plumber! 
Are all the douchebags in Ohio related or something?

If successful, it would be the first individual fist-pumping record listed by Guinness, though not the only one involving fist pumping.

On News Year's Eve 2010, the record most people fist pumping was set in Times Square, where 5,726 revelers were led by the cast of MTV's "Jersey Shore," the reality show that popularized fist pumping.

 Well, that's it. I'm going to go ahead and call it. 12/31/10, society officially pronounced dead.

We Need to Stop Having These Arguments

GOP Rep. Lankford Explains Why It Should Be Legal To Fire Someone For Being Gay: ‘It’s A Choice Issue’

LANKFORD: Well, you’re now dealing with behavior and I’m trying to figure out exactly what you’re trying to mean by that. Because you’re dealing with — race and sexual preferences are two different things. One is a behavior-related and preference-related and one is something inherently — skin color, something obvious, that kind of stuff. You don’t walk up to someone on the street and look at them and say, “Gay or straight?”

Well, no. Not now. But when I was single, of course I did.

Okay, but seriously folks. . .

We need to stop having this "is it a choice to be gay" argument. First of all, the people making this claim can't possibly actually believe it. They couldn't function as human beings if they were that stunningly stupid. Because I don't know about you, but in my life there was never a time when I was offered a choice. And if anyone actually does believe anything this asinine, there's no point in trying to reason with him.

But the most important reason to stop having this argument is what if it was a choice? What if someone actually did get to choose and they made a conscious decision to avoid cooties by sticking with their own gender? It would still be no one else's business. It's none of anyone's business what you do with your naughty bits as long as you're not putting them in someone who doesn't want them. Even if sexuality was a choice, what consenting adults do with their bodies is nobody else's business.

In the same vein, the other argument we should stop having is whether or not gay marriage represents some sort of threat to "traditional" marriage. Not just because it obviously doesn't, and anyone who says it does is either lying or a complete imbecile, but because what if it did? What if two dudes getting married did somehow cause some sort of damage to boy-girl marriage? Why would you assume that the hetero marriage is more valuable, more important than the gay marriage?

If someone had said to me before my wedding "hey, you can't marry her. American-Canadian marriage is a threat to traditional American-American marriage," I would have said "tough shit. My marriage is every bit as important as yours." That's how I feel about gay marriage. Obviously it has no effect on hetero marriage, but if it somehow did, tough shit. My friends Mark and David's marriage isn't any less valuable than my friends Jeff and Mary's.


Sunday, May 13, 2012

Dick of the Day

Facebook Co-Founder Eduardo Saverin.

Eduardo Saverin, one of the founders of Facebook, officially defriended the United States in September, giving up his American citizenship for the more tax-friendly residency status of Singapore.

Mr. Saverin, who was born in Brazil and has lived in Singapore since 2010, plans to remain in the Asian island nation indefinitely. Singapore has a maximum personal income tax rate of 20 percent and no taxes on capital gains. He gained American citizenship in 1998.

Well, Mr. Saverin, it's a good thing that you didn't need the US to be successful. It's a good thing that you didn't need the United States' intellectual property laws, or the US court system that enforces them. Good thing that you didn't need the United States military to develop the internet. Good thing you don't need the public airwaves of the US to make wireless internet access feasible. Yeah, there's certainly no reason why you should have to pay anything back in taxes. Clearly you made it all on your own.Why don't you go live in fucking Galt's Gulch with all the other dickwads who don't owe anything to society.

Yeah, I'm going with "dick."

Eduardo Saverin, you are the dick of the day.

A One-Minute Movie Review

Today we rented the Hangover Part II from Redbox.

I have had actual hangovers funnier than this movie.
And less painful.
Honestly, 90 minutes of me saying "do we have any Alka-Seltzer?" and "Uuuuuuugh. . ." might make a better movie than the Hangover Part II.

The first "Hangover " wasn't bad.

Friday, May 11, 2012

When did society go this far off the rails?

Girl Scouts under scrutiny from Catholic Bishops
David Crary, AP National Writer

Long a lightning rod for conservative criticism, the Girl Scouts of the USA are now facing their highest-level challenge yet: An official inquiry by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Really? Is that true? Have the freakin' girl scouts, the adorable little darlings who bring us cookies, been attacked by right-wing loonies before this year? I guess I shouldn't be surprised  by anything anymore, especially anything that involves right-wing religious nuts being afraid of anything female.

At issue are concerns about program materials that some Catholics find offensive, as well as assertions that the Scouts associate with other groups espousing stances that conflict with church teaching.

Some of the concerns raised by Catholic critics are recycled complaints that have been denied by the Girl Scouts’ head office repeatedly and categorically. It says it has no partnership with Planned Parenthood, and does not take positions on sexuality, birth control and abortion.

But they could, the point is that they could partner up with Planned Parenthood and teach little girls about abortion, so I think it's important that we go ahead and fly into a blind, stupid rage right now just in case.

Sure, right now they look like this:

But what's to stop them from becoming this:


or even this?


Although that's not as scary as the idea of a girl playing baseball, apparently.

Team forfeits due to female opponent
Updated: May 11, 2012, 6:05 PM ET

PHOENIX -- Instead of playing in a championship baseball game, Paige Sultzbach and her team won't even make it to the dugout.

A Phoenix school that was scheduled to play the 15-year-old Mesa girl and her male teammates forfeited the game rather than face a female player.

You know, that might make sense if it was football or wrestling or something, but baseball? Why would you refuse to play against a girl in baseball?

Paige, who plays second base at Mesa Prep, had to sit out two previous games against Our Lady of Sorrows out of respect for its beliefs.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that those are not beliefs worthy of respect. Why should the girl have to sit out because of the other team's idiocy?

Officials at Our Lady of Sorrows declined comment. In a written statement Thursday, the school said the decision to forfeit was consistent with a policy prohibiting co-ed sports.

The statement also said the school teaches boys respect by not placing girls in athletic competition, where "proper boundaries can only be respected with difficulty."

Also, we don't really understand what the word "respect" means.

So basically, proper boundaries means what, exactly? Boys and girls shouldn't be within 60' 6" of each other?

Actually, that is pretty scary!

Of course, girls playing baseball may be controversial to some, but surely not as controversial as the new Canadian $20 bill!

New Canadian $20 Bill Too Provocative for Some
By Lisa Scherzer | The Exchange – Wed, May 9, 2012 3:26 PM EDT

The bill features Queen Elizabeth II, who is celebrating her Diamond Jubilee this year, on the front of the note. The back pays tribute to the sacrifices of Canadian men and women in military conflicts with an image of the Canadian National Vimy Memorial.
However, some people have called elements of the bill "pornographic," while others have noted a resemblance to the Twin Towers that used to stand in lower Manhattan.

How can it be pornographic and also bear a resemblance to two buildings?

This is the bill in question:

So, yeah, the two monuments on the right bear a slight resemblance to the WTC, as do any 2 rectangular objects.

Not cool, man. Too soon.

But where's the pornographic part? Goddammit, I did not go all the way to Canada to come back with freakin' PG-13 money!

The part of the memorial apparently causing some Canadians to blush is a depiction of some of the most senior figures, a group of women — sans clothes — known as the chorus. One person said the naked woman is going to "offend someone." Here's a close-up of the provocative image, depicting the Vimy figures:

That's what passes for porn North of the border?

 This monument, by the way was unveiled in 1936! 1936 and nary a peep. But now it's 2012 and OH MY GOD, TITS!!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!

How in the hell are we more bothered by tits now than in 1936? We are less sophisticated than we were in 1936! Think about that! No, don't, it'll make your head hurt.

But the biggest problem may be that the Vimy’s double-columned design, draped with semi-clad classical figures, manages to evoke both the ill-fated Twin Towers of New York City and softcore porn. “When you quickly glance at it, and if I didn’t know any better, it looks like the Twin Towers,” one focus group participant said, according to documents from Toronto market research firm The Strategic Council obtained by Canadian broadcaster CTV News. Critics called special attention to the figures draped revealingly across the top of the monument, meant to represent Justice and Peace. “It’s too pornographic,” a cash handler in Toronto told researchers. “What is the woman on the top holding?”
Read more:

And that's in Toronto. Toronto is a major metroploitan um, metropolis. This isn't the Canadian version of  Sisterwife, Utah or something.

We're not only less sophisticated about the female body than we were in 1936, we're more prudish than they were in 100 BC!


Oh, sick! Some kind of weird amputee porn!

For fuck's sake, when did society become so terrified of anything female?

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Gee, Bristol Palin's Kind of an Asshole!

I guess the nut doesn't fall far from the tree?

Hail to the Chiefs – Malia and Sasha Obama
May 10, 2012 By Bristol Palin

Is anyone really surprised by the fact that President Obama came out of the closet for gay marriage?

Well, I am. I can't remember the last time he had the balls to take a potentially controversial stand on anything.

What was most surprising is when he explained how his position (supposedly) “evolved,” by talking to his wife and daughters:

"Supposedly" because obviously nothing has ever evolved. Duh!

“It’s interesting, some of this is also generational,” the president continued. “You know when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same-sex equality or, you know, sexual orientation, that they believe in equality. They are much more comfortable with it. You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and, frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.”

Um-hum, and let's see how you can spin a nice family discussion about treating people decently into something horrible. . .

Let’s pause for just one second. When Christian women run for high office, people inevitably bring up the question of submission. Once, Michele Bachmann, for example, was asked during a debate, “As president, would you be submissive to your husband?”

Once/inevitably, tomato/tomahto!

Ms Bachmann was asked that question because she has expressed those kind of trogolodyte fundamentalist views before, not for whatever insidious fake reason you're going to assume.

People automatically assume that a Christian female President isn’t capable of making decisions without her spouse’s stamp of approval.  (I should add female Republican candidates –liberal women don’t get the same kind of questions.)
Goddamm right we don't, bitch!

Maybe because people know that liberal women are unlikely to espouse such ridiculous beliefs?

So are all those reporters who feared excessive family intervention in the White House all up in arms over the President’s announcement yesterday?  Um.  Not quite.

Because it's totally the same thing, a president listening to his family's point of view and a president having to get her decisions approved by a self-loathing closet queen. Yeah, totally the same.

 So let me get this straight – it’s a problem if my mom listened too much to my dad, but it’s a heroic act if the President made a massive change in a policy position that could affect the entire nation after consulting with his teenage daughters?

Jeezus! How did you work your mom  into this? You do know Michele Bachmann is not your mom, right? I know other people get them mixed up, but you. . .


See, the stupid, empty-headed one is. . . no, that's not helpful.
Um, the batshit crazy one. . . oh, never mind.

And no one ever said that the problem with your mom was that she listened to your dad. She's got 99 problems, but your dad ain't one. No one ever accused your mother of listening to anyone except the voices in her head.

While it’s great to listen to your kids’ ideas, there’s also a time when dads simply need to be dads.

In this case, it would’ve been helpful for him to explain to Malia and Sasha that while her friends parents are no doubt lovely people, that’s not a reason to change thousands of years of thinking about marriage.

Yes, we must continue to think about things the way our anestors did thousands of years ago, That's why w must throw virgins into volcanoes to kep them from erupting, and consult the goat entrails before going into battle.

Or that – as great as her friends may be – we know that in general kids do better growing up in a mother/father home.  Ideally, fathers help shape their kids’ worldview.


 In this situation, it was the other way around.  I guess we can be glad that Malia and Sasha aren’t younger, or perhaps today’s press conference might have been about appointing Dora the Explorer as Attorney General because of her success in stopping Swiper the Fox.

Yes, because the actual living, breathing, human parents of their friends are exactly the same as a cartoon character.

Sometimes dads should lead their family in the right ways of thinking.  In this case, it would’ve been nice if the President would’ve been an actual leader and helped shape their thoughts instead of merely reflecting what many teenagers think after one too many episodes of Glee.

I'm sorry, how many episodes of Glee does it take to give someone the idea that gay people are, um, people? People who should have at least the same rights as an ignorant hillbilly hatemonger whose sole accomplishment was figuring out a way to make money off of getting knocked up by a human meth PSA?

Not Even Once.

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

Don't let the door hit you on the way out, ya nut, ya.

Michele Bachmann becomes a Swiss citizen
By Joel Roberts | The Ticket – 19 hrs ago


What better way for Michele Bachmann to show her love for 'Murica than to leave and bring her wingnuttery to another country. I would have suggested Pakistan or China, or some other country that has it comin', but I'll take it.

Wait, what?

The Minnesota congresswoman and former Republican presidential candidate was recently granted dual citizenship, Bachmann's office confirmed Tuesday night, according to CNN.

Wait, she's not leaving?

"Congresswoman Bachmann's husband is of Swiss descent so she has been eligible for dual-citizenship since they got married in 1978," spokeswoman Becky Rogness said in a statement. 

"Also, because of her husband, she is eligible for citizenship in closetland," she did not add.

 "However, recently some of their children wanted to exercise their eligibility for dual-citizenship so they went through the process as a family."

Oooohh, now it makes sense. Her children are so embarrassed that they want to flee to another country. Well, can't blame them there.