Friday, April 28, 2017

Your liberal media at work

So the New York Times, America's "Paper of Record" has hired a new columnist. Presumably, they had their pick. The Times Op-Ed page is still probably the most prestigious in America, so there would be no excuse for hiring some stupid right-wing twit in the mold of say, Ross Douthat or someone, right?

Climate of Complete Certainty

Last October, the Pew Research Center published a survey on the politics of climate change. Among its findings: Just 36 percent of Americans care “a great deal” about the subject. Despite 30 years of efforts by scientists, politicians and activists to raise the alarm, nearly two-thirds of Americans are either indifferent to or only somewhat bothered by the prospect of planetary calamity.
Why? The science is settled. The threat is clear. Isn’t this one instance, at least, where 100 percent of the truth resides on one side of the argument?

 Yes. Yes it is. The science is settled, the threat is clear. The fact that a minority of Americans surveyed (inherently uncertain data) choose to take this seriously does not alter the facts.

 Well, not entirely. As Andrew Revkin wrote last year about his storied career as an environmental reporter at The Times, “I saw a widening gap between what scientists had been learning about global warming and what advocates were claiming as they pushed ever harder to pass climate legislation.” The science was generally scrupulous. The boosters who claimed its authority weren’t.

 That does not change the fact that the science is settled. The science was scrupulous. (Can a field of study be scrupulous? That seems wrong to this English teacher's son, but let's not nitpick.)

 Anyone who has read the 2014 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change knows that, while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the Northern Hemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming, much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities.

Okay, first of all, just because those numbers sound "modest" to a layman's ears doesn't mean they aren't significant. If your body temperature went up a mere 1.5 degrees, you would probably think that was a big deal.

 And, yeah, "probabilities." Like there is a pretty high probability that as the polar ice caps melt, the laws of physics probably won't change to keep sea levels from rising to dangerous levels. And there's a "probability" that rising sea levels have something to do with the streets of Miami being flooded at high tide most days. 

 That’s especially true of the sophisticated but fallible models and simulations by which scientists attempt to peer into the climate future. To say this isn’t to deny science. It’s to acknowledge it honestly.

 Okay. Of course models and simulations are uncertain predictors of the future. But we don't really need a lot of simulations to predict the goddamm present. The present in which each year is a new record for warmest year on record, breaking the record held by the previous year. The present in which polar ice is disappearing at an alarming rate. The present in which sea acidity is rising and coral reefs are dying out. You can see all those things happening today, right now, with no computer models or formulae or algorithms, just a functioning pair of eyes.

 None of this is to deny climate change or the possible severity of its consequences. But ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power.

 Sure. "ordinary citizens" have every right to be skeptical. Just as they have every right to believe that the world is flat, the moon landing was fake, professional wrestling is real and trickle-down economics work. And the leaders of society have an obligation to ignore those skeptics and enact sane policies. Policies that take science into account. That's why we have scientists and that's why we have governments. So that people who think that spacemen built the pyramids or that Joseph built them to store grain can be ignored while the grownups solve real-world problems. 

I’ve taken the epigraph for this column from the Polish poet Czeslaw Milosz, who knew something about the evils of certitude. Perhaps if there had been less certitude and more second-guessing in Clinton’s campaign, she’d be president. Perhaps if there were less certitude about our climate future, more Americans would be interested in having a reasoned conversation about it.

 So, if climatologists were to end each report with "eh, but what do I know?" you think then we could have a civilized discussion about the actual thing that is actually happening right fucking now that is going to kill countless people with floods, famines and disease? Is that what you think?

 Well, that's it for the next few days. The NRA is holding some sick convention in Atlanta and have invited Il Douche to speak, so we gotta get out of town. We'll be back as soon as the coast is clear.

Thursday, April 27, 2017


This is rich. Despicable, loathsome hate-monger Debbie Schlussel has accused Sean Hannity of sexual harassment.  I obviously wasn't there, and don't know Sean or Debbie, but obviously he is guilty. Because, come on! But anyway, it raises the question: is she hoping for sympathy? Are we supposed to feel bad for her? Because, normally I would feel really bad for any woman who had to be in the same room with Sean Hannity, but when someone has made a name for herself with posts like these:

July 1, 2013, - 2:52 pm

No Tears for Raped Dutch Reporter in Egypt – This is Islam; This is Islamic Democracy & Liberation

I really couldn’t care less for a reporter who goes into Islamic countries–where we know Muslims regard women as chattel and living sex toys–and expects them to behave like Western gentleman. You go to Egypt expecting that, as you cheer on the Muslims there, I shed no tears for what happens to you. That’s the breaks when you take your chances and go to Egypt. The Western women who get raped there–including Logan and this reporter–are liberal moronettes who think they are doing G-d’s work cheering on these savages and pretending they aren’t savages, but “democrats.” Then, when they get “liberated” by these “democrats,” I’m supposed to feel sorry for them? Hilarious.

I gotta say, I'm giving Hannity a pass on this one. You go to FOX expecting the animals there to behave like gentlemen, I shed no tears for what happens to you there. That's the breaks when you take your chances and go to FOX News.

On Friday February 11, the day Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak stepped down, CBS correspondent Lara Logan was covering the jubilation in Tahrir Square for a “60 Minutes” story. . . 
In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers.. . . She is currently in the hospital recovering.

Lara Logan was among the chief cheerleaders of this “revolution” by animals. Now she knows what Islamic revolution is really all about. . . So sad, too bad, Lara. No one told her to go there. She knew the risks. And she should have known what Islam is all about. Now she knows.

Too bad so sad Debbie Schlussel. No one told you to go to the FOX studios. You knew the risks. And you should have known what FOX is all about. Now you know.

For the record, this blog does NOT condone sexual harassment in the workplace or anywhere else. Except in the case of someone who said that the brutal sexual assault of another reporter "warmed her heart." In that case, if Sean Hannity invited her to his hotel room and then stopped having her on as a guest when she declined, that really feels a bit like poetic justice. But Sean Hannity can still go to Hell.

Monday, April 24, 2017

Dumb guy writes dumb column about dumb FOX network.

This was the headline in the op-ed page of today's Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

Ousters of  Ailes, O'Reilly sad for Fox news, America

Are You Serious GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

Oh, but he is serious, Robert Hayes, and don't call

Anyway. . .

 Yes. This Ed Rogers person, whoever he is, is deadly serious that the firings of two vile lecherous sexual abuers of power is somehow bad for America. Let's let him explain:

Read more here:

You mean, cranky old white men might end up tuning in to a less dishonest source of news? One with less racism, sexism, homophobia and rank stupidity? But the fear-mongering! Where will they go for the fear-mongering?

Despite his flaws, Roger Ailes was a man who could see the future. He had a great eye for talent and kept the quality standards at Fox consistently high.

Read more here:

I think these three might be consistently high.

  Bill O’Reilly was an intellectual giant

Sorry, sorry. . . do go on.

  Bill O’Reilly was an intellectual giant

Tbs GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

 Okay, okay. I'm sorry. continue.

  Bill O’Reilly was an intellectual giant who could take on all comers and keep the conservative perspective honest and, at times, dominant.

Read more here:
Yes, you can usually spot an intellectual giant by looking for the guy screaming "SHUT UP!" and "Cut his mic off!" That's the way a true intellectual persuades his opponents. Another good sign: his name on a lot of ghost-written third-rate "history" books.

Despite solid anchors including Bret Baier, Stuart Varney and Neil Cavuto, I fear Fox News will become sort of a Branson, Mo., version of the news, where lackluster talent will find a fading home when they can’t broadcast anywhere else.

Read more here:

Funny GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

Oh, yes. It's amazing that Ailes was able to scoop up Bret Baier, Stuart Varney and Neil fcuking Cavuto! What a coup! I'm sure every network in town was angling to get one of these three!

Honestly, Branson. MO is pretty much a perfect analogy for the current iteration of FOX "News." A place for old white people to reminisce about the "good ol' days" when everyone knew their place and straight white Christian men ruled unchallenged. And it's a safe setting where nothing will ever challenge their pre-existing notions. The only real difference is that Branson, from what I understand, is pleasant. But if you really think someone like Stuart Varney or Neil Cavuto could get a job on any other network, you must be nuts! (Okay, probably CNBC, but that doesn't count.)

Just like Ailes, O’Reilly was a threat to the left – and therefore a target. He had done more harm to the liberal cause than anyone else.

Read more here:

Really? More than these two?

What "harm" has Billo done to the "liberal cause?" The only harm he's ever done is to the centrist-conservative demo. By weaponizing the far right and pounding it into the brains of every even-slightly-conservative-leaning sucker in America, he has helped turn the Republican Party into an organization that embraces absolute loonies like Bcahmann, Gohmert, Steve King and Donald Trump. He has been a big part of turning the party of TR and Ike into the party of Sarah Palin and Ted Nugent.
So how does this harm liberals? Well, let's look at an example. Midway through his Presidency, Barack Obama was looking to make a "grand bargain" with Boehner and the Republicans. He had eagerly put Sociual security cuts on the table. The only reason, the ONLY REASON, that Social Security remains intact today is that the Tea Party lunatics who now run the party wouldn't take "yes" for an answer. They either were going to get 100 percent of their demands or there would be no deal at all. So there was no deal. And the faction that Bill O'Reilly helped to create inadvertantly saved Social Security.
For a more recent example, jusdt look at the recent "trumpcare" debacle. Republicans control both houses of Congress and the Oval Office, but they couldn't manage to repeal or replace the ACA. Why? Because the Bill-O'Reilly wing of the party were furious that it didn't go far enough. They were not going to vot for ANY bill that might help a single poor person get medical care. And so the Billo wing ended up saving the ACA. So, maybe you could explain how Bill O'Reilly has "harmed" the "liberal cause?"

The double standard, being what it is against Republicans, is on full display. The voices that were silent about the serial abuser Bill Clinton and his enabler, Hillary Clinton, have been protected and even celebrated while Ailes and O’Reilly were hounded out of their jobs.

Read more here:

Oh, right. Conservative writers don't bother backing up their claims. They just state something that is demonstrably false, assume their readers will accept it as Gospel, and move right on to playing the victim.

But the point here is not about these two men, it is about the voice and role Fox News has played over the years. The network was an unstoppable and irreplaceable force.
With Ailes as the conductor of a fair and balanced symphony orchestra and O’Reilly in the first chair, Fox News offered quality, top-rated programming year after year. Each night, O’Reilly produced commentary that offered clear thinking, compelling logic and exposed the abuses of liberals better than anyone else.

Read more here: 

Really? Fair and Balanced? You're really trotting that out? That's just s dumb slogan, it has no basis in fact. It's like Taco Bell claiming to serve Mexican food, or CBS claiming to air "comedies." And if you're going to pretend that FOX is "fair and balanced," you might not want to also say that it is led by a man that you just said " keep[s] the conservative perspective honest and, at times, dominant."

No one will truly be able to replace Ailes or O’Reilly – but not because they won’t try. Together, these men offered unique perspectives, talents and capabilities. They anchored Fox News. Without Ailes and O’Reilly, Fox News is destined to become something much different from what it once was.

Read more here:

A place that's safe for women to work?

This is what Democrats have been praying for all these years, and they are finally going to get it: Fox News without the original thinkers.

Read more here:

Laughing GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

Ahahahahahaha!!! "original thinkers!" Ahahahahaha!! Yeah, racism, misogyny and xenophobia were such original ideas!
A TV version of Rush Limbaugh or Father Coughlin! Now that's originality!

I hope Fox News can recover, but for the time being, it looks like less truth will be available to the public.

Read more here:

Yeah, just like how when Hostess bakery went out of business, there was so much less healthy snacks available!

Ed Rogers writes for the Washington Post.

Much to their eternal shame.

I mean, seriously, WaPo, this is what you want in your paper? A dishonest promo for a dishonest network? A network which, I'll wager, trashes your paper on a regular basis? And do you really want to be the paper known for defending sexual harrassers?

Thursday, April 20, 2017

And here I was thinking that Mike Pence was the adult in the room!

You know, for all the horrible things about Mike pence, his smug self-righteousness, his theocratic-fascist leanings, his general assholishness, I at least thought he was sort of a mature, responsible adult. Then I see this:

There has been much discussion in Washington about Pence’s short visit to the demilitarized zone, where he stood outside the Freedom House on the South Korean side of the border and stared into North Korea. Pence wasn’t supposed to walk outside, according to the schedule, but he decided in the moment he wanted to send a message directly to the North Koreans.

He wanted to send a message. He couldn't telephone them? Or e-mail? Or send a telegram? Maybe go old-school? 

 “I thought it was important that we went outside,” he said. “I thought it was important that people on the other side of the DMZ see our resolve in my face.”

 Oh, for the love of . . . SERIOUSLY?
That's what this was?

This was some sort of "strategy" on your part? Showing them your tough-guy face?

 Grandpa Simpson called, he wants his foreign policy strategy back.

By the way, the DMZ is like two and a half  miles wide. You think they picked up on the nuances of your facial expression? You stupid child?
And who do you think is in the guard tower on the other side? You think Kim Jong Un is in there? You think any of his top guys are in there? Or do you think that some poor Korean corporal is grabbing the phone, calling the Presidential Palace and shouting "Mr. President, come quickly! Pence is glaring at us! I think he means business!"

I'ma getcha, North Korea! I'ma getcha!

This is the thinking of a child. A not-particularly-bright child. I jad a friend like this when I was a child. This guy, I assume he's probably in prison now, he had a bizarre obsession with the military, he knew how to do close-order drills and what-not, he would organize us into companies and give us ranks when we played Army guys. But anyway, this friend would say things like this. One time, he was chasing another boy and he picked up a small twig and snapped it in half. Later he said "he sure took off running when he saw me break that stick!"  "I don't know," I said. "It was a pretty small stick, I don't think it was all that scary." "Doesn't matter," replied my friend. "breaking a stick. It's a sign of toughness." That's the mentality of Mike Pence.

 I asked the vice president what he was thinking at that moment.

That's a more diplomatic way of saying "what the hell was going on in your mind when you decided to pull an asinine stunt like that?"
 So. . . that's the Bad Korea over there, right?


Wednesday, April 19, 2017

Two things that can not possibly end well and one that probably will

Alabama Senate OKs Fundamentalist Christian Church Police Force

That has to be some sort of a misleading headline, right? Christian police?

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) — The Alabama Senate has voted to allow a church to form its own police force.
Lawmakers on Tuesday voted 24-4 to allow Briarwood Presbyterian Church in Birmingham to establish a law enforcement department.

Oh for God's sake! (no pun intended)

You know, religion-based police forces inevitably end up looking something like this:

And what happens if a crime is committed on church property? Do the real police have jurisdiction? Or is it like college campuses where rape victims have to go to campus police whose main concern is the school's reputation and not costing the football team a possible win? I mean, not that a rape could ever happen in a religious institution or anything. . . oh, right.

Does the church get to have its own jails? What if you're arrested by the church cops for, I don't know, blasphemy or something? Can they hold you in the narthex? Do you get a lawyer? And who will be supervising these church-based police? Who's going to stop them from arresting people for swearing, or being gay, or questioning Scripture? Has anyone thought this through?

Trump’s EPA is reconsidering a rule that limits mercury from power plants

Mercury! Sure, why on Earth would you want to limit the amount of MERCURY that gets spewed into the air? It's not like MERCURY is going to hurt anyone, right?

Elemental and Vaporized Mercury Poisoning Symptoms

Elemental mercury toxicity (which usually occurs in the vaporized form) can cause:
  • mood swings, nervousness, irritability, and other emotional changes,
  • insomnia,
  • headache,
  • abnormal sensations,
  • muscle twitching,
  • tremors,
  • weakness,
  • muscle atrophy, and
  • decreased cognitive functions.
High exposures of elemental mercury can cause kidney malfunction, respiratory failure, and death.

Season 3 GIF - Find & Share on GIPHY

So. . . what's the argument for NOT limiting the amount of mercury in the air we all have to breathe?

The Environmental Protection Agency’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standard (MATS) rule has been in place for two years, but, “in light of the recent change in administration” the agency now says it wants time to “fully review” the findings. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was expected to hear oral arguments for the case on May 18.
The rule was the culmination of more than two decades of effort to limit the amount of mercury from coal-fired power plants. In 2015, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision led by Justice Antonin Scalia, found that the EPA had not adequately considered the cost of the regulation.

Fucking Scalia!
The cost.
They hadn't adequately considered the cost. They hadn't taken into consideration that it might be kinda expensive to not poison us all. Sure, we'd all like to avoid kidney failure and death, but what about the profit margin? Won't someone please think of the poor profit margin?

Fucking Scalia!

Neo-Nazi Sues Trump For Making Him Punch A Black Lady At A Rally

You don't say?

Matthew Heimbach claims in his federal court filing that he “acted pursuant to the directives and requests of Donald J. Trump and Donald J. Trump for President” and that, if he’s found liable for damages, “any liability must be shifted to one or both of them.”

The legal fight stems from a March 2016 rally in Louisville, Kentucky, at which protesters were allegedly roughed up and ejected by Trump supporters after the then-candidate barked from the stage “get ’em out of here!”
The protesters filed civil assault and battery claims against Heimbach and two other Trump supporters and accused Trump of inciting his supporters.
Heimbach, a leader of the white supremacist Traditionalist Youth Network and a vocal Trump supporter during the campaign, can be seen in video from the Louisville rally pushing and screaming at a young African-American woman as Trump bellows “get out!”

 hmm, if only there was a way this could get even better. . .

Heimbach, who is representing himself in the case

In Heimbach’s Monday filing, he “denies physically assaulting” any protesters. But he also levies blame at the protesters, writing that they “provoked a response” by trying “to disrupt a free assembly and campaign event and to infringe rights of the defendants and other attendees to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to vote and other constitutional rights.”
He writes that he “acted, if at all, in self defense,” as well as “in reasonable defense of others,” while also contending he was acting at Trump’s instruction. 

So. . . I didn't do it. And it was their fault I did it and I only did it in self-defense and Trump told me to do it. To do that thing that I didn't do unless maybe I did in self defense.

Noting that Trump is “a world famous businessman” who “relies on various professionals including attorneys and other professional advisors,” Heimbach writes that he "relied on Trump’s reputation and expertise in doing the things alleged." Heimbach writes that he relied on Trump’s authority to order disruptive persons removed and that Trump was legally within his rights to ask other attendees to assist in defending their constitutional rights "against ‘protesters’ who were disrupting.”

Yes, as everyone knows, legally you are allowed to use force against another person if instructed to do so by a world-famous businessman.

Also, you say he employs "professionals including attorneys?" Have you ever met or seen any of these supposed expert attorneys? Because judging by what he hired to be his doctor. . .

Heimbach’s motion mirrors one filed Friday afternoon by another protester accused of assault in the lawsuit, Alvin Bamberger, a member of the Korean War Veterans Association who also was captured on video pushing Nwanguma.
While Bamberger’s lawyers in their filing said their client “admits only that he touched a woman,” he “denies that he assaulted that woman.”
But Bamberger’s lawyers stressed that “to the extent that Bamberger acted, he did so in response to — and inspired by — Trump and/or the Trump Campaign’s urging to remove the protesters.” They added that Bamberger “had no prior intention to act as he did” and “would not have acted as he did without Trump and/or the Trump Campaign’s specific urging and inspiration.”

Oh my God, there are two of them. Two violent, racist pricks blaming their racist violence on the bloated windbag king of the disillusioned white men. Can he be dragged into court? Probably not. Unless the case goes to trial post-impeachment. But either way, I just don't see any way that this doesn't end spectacularly well!

Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Oh, shut up, Mike Pence!

So Mike Pence was in Korea during Easter weekend and gave a speech to some very unfortunate soldiers.:

Remarks by the Vice President and Mrs. Pence to the Troops, Seoul, South Korea

So, when you give a speech it's often recommended that you open with some really obsequious ass-kissing of the most powerful man in the room.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you so much, General Brooks.  It is an honor to be with you today on this Easter Sunday, and let me invite a round of applause from all the great soldiers and their families who are gathered here for General Vincent Brooks, and the great leadership that he provides here to United States Forces Korea.  (Applause.) 
General, we are proud -- grateful for your leadership. 

Yeah, that's exactly what the enlisted men and women want to be doing on Sunday morning, applauding the fucking general.

To Chaplain Kim, to Chaplain Wasaki (ph), and to all of those who made the service so special to us, my daughter Audrey already told me that was one of the best sermons she’s heard in a year and a half.  So what a special Easter sermon.  (Applause.)

Okay, what the fuck is wrong with your daughter?
A: Who comments on sermons other than to say "well, at least it wasn't too long!" or "Gawd, I bet Jesus fell asleep halfway through that one!"

B: Who ranks sermons? It's one thing to say "that was the best sermon I've ever heard, I almost stayed awake through the whole thing," but the best she's heard in a year and a half? That's like Elias Sports Bureau level of keeping track of stuff. Does she take notes? I bet she takes notes. Compiles them in some sort of binder. Ranks them in order of inspirationalness or something. You have a weird fucking family, is what I'm getting at, Mr Pence.

I bring greetings this morning from your Commander-in-Chief, President Donald Trump.  (Applause.)  I spoke to the President early today, and I spoke to him on the way over.  And he asked me to be here, and he told me in no uncertain terms to make sure that I told all of you we're proud of you, and we are grateful for your service to the United States of America on this frontier of freedom that is South Korea.  (Applause.)

He'd have been here himself, but y'all just don't have that really good chocolate cake that he likes. Plus those golfballs aren't gonna hit themselves, right?

 Also, are we seriously pretending that standing on a strip of land between the two Koreas is doing some sort of service to the United States?

In fact, I can say with confidence that every American is proud of your service here, and the attention that this part of the world has gotten from people back home is probably no surprise to all of you who are gathered here today.  This morning’s provocation from the north is just the latest reminder of the risks each one of you face every day in the defense of the freedom of the people of South Korea and the defense of America in this part of the world.

Hey, here's a fun fact. America is not in this part of the world! So these men and women who signed up to serve their country are sitting there potentially in harm's way for what, exactly? The "defence of the freedom of the people of South Korea?" Oh, your families must be so proud. Because as we all know, if Seoul falls, next comes, um . . . that's probably pretty much it. The threat never makes it anywhere near America.

Pictured: North Korean Missile program.

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  It is the greatest privilege of my life to serve as Vice President to a President who cares so deeply about the men and women of our armed forces and their families.

Of course, neither Il Douche nor myself actually ever got around to serving in the military, but if the President were here instead of on the golf course, he'd probably spew the same empty platitudes about your service that I have.

And let me promise those family members and all of you in uniform here today that under President Trump’s leadership, we're going to rebuild our military.  We're going to restore the arsenal of democracy.  We're going to give our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guard the resources you need and deserve to accomplish the mission you are given and come home safe.  That's a promise from your Commander-in-Chief.  (Applause.) 

You know, a promise. Like "Mexico's gonna pay for the wall," or "I will defeat ISIS in 30 days," or repealing and replacing Obamacare will be done Day one." Those kind of promises.
Also, is it really advisable to tell an audience of service members that the military needs to be rebuilt? Like, "you may feel like members of the finest fighting force ever assembled, but trust me the American Army is in a fucking shambles! You guys couldn't fight your way out of a paper bag right now. Honest to God, I'm amazed the Russians haven't just walked in and taken over yet!"

This is a challenging time all over the world, but especially here in the Asia Pacific.

Um, the "Asia Pacific" is the part of the world you find most challenging right now? Not, say, Syria? Or Iraq? Turkey, maybe? Russia? It's the Korean Peninsula that's got you losing sleep?

The opportunity for me to be here today at such a time as this is a great privilege for me, but let me assure you under President Trump’s leadership, our resolve has never been stronger.

I'm not sure you understand what the word "resolve" means. "Resolve" is not generally shown by someone who has big plans for handling North Korea, then spends 10 minutes talking to the Chinese President and says "oh, man. That's all way more complicated than I thought. Maybe I'll just go play golf instead."

Our commitment to this historic alliance with the courageous people of South Korea has never been stronger.  And with your help and with God’s help, freedom will ever prevail on this peninsula.

How much bravery does it take to be SOUTH Korea right now?
Your country looks like this:

You have a manufacturing base that turns out some of the finest products in the world, from smartphones to cars. You can't possibly have any trouble manufacturing weaponry.

Meanwhile the country who is your biggest threat looks like this:

Their military is apparently composed of gamine teens with possibly toy guns.

And this is the height of their technology:

And standing between them and you is the military might of the United States of goddamm America. I'm not an especially brave man, but I think I would sleep comfortably there.

But it is Easter Sunday, and as I look out at all these courageous Americans and courageous Koreans who are gathered here today, I’m deeply humbled.  I truly am.  We celebrate today what Karen and I and those of us gathered here recall as that Resurrection Sunday, and that worship service was so sublime. 
But it puts me to mind of one of my favorite stories in the Old Book.

Okay, it's the "GOOD Book." Not the "Old Book." No one calls it the "old Book." If you're going to get all pious on Easter Sunday, at least show some familiarity with the Bible/ 

  It’s the story of a moment where the Nazarene encountered a soldier.  The soldier walked up to him and told him that he had someone ill in his home, and he asked if he might take action to be helpful. 

What?!?!? "Take action to be helpful?"
Also, there are two versions of this story in the New Testament, and in neither does the Centurion ask Jesus to take any action or to be helpful.

Here's the first:

Matthew 8:5-13King James Version (KJV)

5 And when Jesus was entered into Capernaum, there came unto him a centurion, beseeching him,
And saying, Lord, my servant lieth at home sick of the palsy, grievously tormented.
And Jesus saith unto him, I will come and heal him.

The Centurion just tells Jesus that his servant is sick. Jesus volunteers to go and heal him, without being asked because that's the kind of stand-up guy Jesus was.


Here is the second:

Luke 7:1-10King James Version (KJV)

Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum.
And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.
And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.
And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this:

In this version, it's "the elders of the Jews" that ask Jesus to heal the man's servant.
In neither version does a "soldier" ask Jesus to "take action to be helpful." Can you imagine how rude that would have been? "Hey, Jesus. My servant is sick. Why don't you make yourself useful and maybe take some action for a change, you lazy Messiah?"

I don't mean to be nit-pickey, but you're the unctuous bastard who's going around talking Bible stories like you're the Vice President of the Vatican.

 And as Jesus began to walk with him, he said, no, you don't need to come with me.  He said, I’m a man under authority.  He said, I tell one to do this and he does it.  I tell another to do this and he does it.  He said, you just say the word and that servant under my household will be healed.
The words that ever struck me from that story were there at that crossroads, the story recalls in a little town called Capernaum.  It simply said that Jesus was amazed.
At no other point in any of the stories of his life do I hear that he was amazed, except when he was speaking to a soldier.  Because he saw orientation to authority and he saw faith.
 [emphasis added]

WHAT? Orientation to authority? That's what you think amazed Jesus?
Because this is how the story actually ends:

In Luke:
When Jesus heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

In Matthew:
10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.
11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

In both versions, Jesus marvels at the fact that a Centurion, a Roman, a Gentile, had such a strong faith in him, stronger than any of his own people. It has nothing to do with the Centurion's devotion to authority or whatever. I know you'd love to find a verse in which Jesus approves of your Christ-fascism, but this one ain't it. Neither are any of the others. Because Jesus was not some authoritarian theocrat.

Friday, April 14, 2017

Why is this in a newspaper?

Look, I know the New York Post is garbage. Rupert-Murdoch-owned garbage. But you's think they'd have some sort of standards. No?

Why I won’t date hot women anymore

Um, mostly because they keep saying "no?"

When it came to dating in New York as a 30-something executive in private equity, Dan Rochkind had no problem snagging the city’s most beautiful women.
“I could have [anyone] I wanted,” says Rochkind, now 40 and an Upper East Sider with a muscular build and a full head of hair. “I met some nice people, but realistically I went for the hottest girl you could find.”

You left out "Dear Penthouse Forum. . . "

He spent the better part of his 30s going on up to three dates a week, courting 20-something blond models, but eventually realized that dating the prettiest young things had its drawbacks — he found them flighty, selfish and vapid.

And if there's one thing that a guy who goes for the hottest girls he can find can't stand, it's people who are selfish and vapid!

Hmmph! They're so shallow!

“Beautiful women who get a fair amount of attention get full of themselves,” he says. “Eventually, I was dreading getting dinner with them because they couldn’t carry a conversation.”

 "She's so full of herself" said the guy who says he can get any woman he wants.

Also, it's a well-known fact that  no woman can be both sexy and intelligent. You have to pick one or the other, duh!

According to new research, Rochkind’s ideas about sexy bikini babes are correct. A multipart study from Harvard University, University of La Verne and Santa Clara University researchers found that beautiful people are more likely to be involved in unstable relationships.

I don't suppose it has anything to do with the fact that these "sexy bikini babes" are often seen dating men who "just go for the hottest girl" they can find and believe that they can "have anyone they want?"
No, if Harvard U. is involved, I'm sure the methodology must be impeccable!

 In one part, the researchers looked at the top 20 actresses on IMDb and found that they tend to have rocky marriages.

Wait, what? That's your. . . first of all your sample size is TWENTY? And there's no control group, and the subjects are nowhere near randomly chosen and "having rocky marriages" is defined as what, exactly? Are you sure Harvard is involved in this shit?
( I looked it up. They were. Oy.)

In another, women were asked to judge the attractiveness of 238 men based on their high school yearbook photos from 30 years ago. The men who were judged to be the best-looking had higher rates of divorce.

Looking to avoid such a fate, Rochkind started dating a woman who isn’t a bikini model, Carly Spindel, in January 2015. The two are now happily engaged.
The two met after Spindel’s mother, matchmaker Janis Spindel, scouted Rochkind at a gym.

Right. If you want a stable srteady relationship ypu want the kind of gal whose mother pimps her out to dudes she sees at the gym!

“I gave him my card and said I have the perfect girl for him,” recalls Janis, founder of Serious Matchmaking, based in Midtown. “Successful men who are in shape have the pickings when it comes to dating, [but] eventually they want a woman of substance.

Yes. . . "substance."

Rochkind found that in Carly, 30, a lovely brunette who’s the vice president of her mother’s matchmaking company and a Syracuse University graduate. Rochkind proposed to her last May in Central Park. He loves that Carly isn’t like the swimsuit models he used to go for.

Oh. um, yes. . . what a "plain Jane." 

“From my personal experience, people who are better looking are less likely to pursue advanced degrees, or play an instrument or learn other languages,” says Benedict Beckeld, a 37-year-old Brooklyn writer with a doctorate in philosophy and the body of an Adonis. But he’s quick to note that he’s not just a great set of abs — he also plays the violin and speaks seven languages.

In my experience, most hot people aren't also super smart and cultured like me.   I'm not just a set of abs, but seriously, check out these abs! Also, I'm so smart! Honestly, ladies, if you're looking for the whole package, I'm really your only option!

After dating an athletic banker with model good looks for two years, Sonali Chitre, 34, has sworn off hotties.
“He was a Nazi about his diet and would work out hard-core and cared more about his body than just living life,” says Chitre, who broke up with the finance guy last October.

And if this one hot guy was a dud in the personality department, obviously all hot guys must be equally dull. That's just science!

Chitre, an environmental lawyer and the founder of Priyamvada Sustainability Consulting, considers herself “a 9 or a 10,” but she says she’s done with gorgeous guys. Now, she’s more interested in “superballer” men with high-paying careers.

So. . . your good-looking boyfriend was shallow and self-absorbed. Your answer is to focus on dating guys with lots of money? Because you don't like shallow, self-absorbed people? Even though yu apparently are one? I'm so confused.

Also, no "hot" guys are ever "super-ballers" with high-paying careers.

Megan Young, a 23-year-old p.r. woman from Hoboken, NJ, also changed her dating habits. The svelte, blue-eyed brunette used to exclusively date 6-foot-tall dudes who looked like Calvin Klein models.
“As a person who’s always been complimented on [my] ‘stunning beauty’ … I’d been searching for a ‘hot’ guy to match the label I had always been given,” says Young. “But after a date or two, they’ll have problems hanging out with you and then will ghost.”

Hmm. . . you're saying that these guys tire of dating a grown-ass woman who uses expressions like "ghost," and talks about her own "stunning beauty?"

 And, not for nothing honey, but "stunning beauty" is being awwwwfully generous!

Last year, she stopped putting looks at the top of her dating criteria on Bumble, instead opting for guys who traveled a lot and were “make the most out of their lives” types. In August 2016, she met Christopher Argese, a 27-year-old security technician. Unlike the square-jawed bachelors who disrespected her, Argese is more boy-next-door in the looks department. But he’s kind and attentive.
“He’s not a model, but he’s so much more attractive in who he is as a person,” Young says.
And best of all, she says, Argese doesn’t just see her as a status symbol.
“When I asked him why he loves me, he said that he loves my drive and my passion,” Young says.

Oh fer the love of. . . Jeezus, Megan, of course that's what he said. What's he going to say? "Why do I love you? Let me count the ways - uh, you're purty and guys are impressed when they see me with a purty lady!" Did the model-looking guys tell you that they just saw you as arm candy? You think the hot-model dudes saw you as a status symbol, but Homely McSchlub barely noticed your "stunning beauty" and just loves your mind? Wouldn't the hot model guys always have gorgeous women on their arms?If anyone would be able to see past your looks, it should be guys that are used to dating beautiful women.

Anyway, this article has given us the reasons that Megan Young, Sonali Chitre, Dan Rochkind and Benedict Beckeld no longer date "hot" people. We have yet to hear a single reason why the author, Christian Gollayan, doesn't.  I think the main reason can be deduced by a simple Google image search:

Sorry, Victoria's Secret models, not interested!

But one question remains: WHY THE HELL IS THIS IN A NEWSPAPER?