Funny Woman of the Day -- Suzanne Weber

Suzanne Weber wrote the book
To What Miserable Wretches Have I Been Born?
  Revenge Poetry for Babies and Toddlers

upon which I happened to stumble while killing time at Barnes & Noble.

She has probably written other funny things, but either way, this book alone qualifies her to be today's Funny Woman of the Day. Here's an example:

Iʼm Not Okay

When I bonk myself really, really hard
on the edge of the coffee table…
When I fall down ʻcause Iʼm just learning to walk
and Iʼm still not that steady on my feet…
When I slip off the swing ʻcause you were checking your iPhone
and not watching me as carefully as you should have…
Guess what?
That shit hurts!!
Youʼve got to know it does.
So why is your first reaction always,
“Youʼre okay! Youʼre okay!”?
Do you honestly think youʼre gonna trick me into thinking I didnʼt just
get an enormous goose egg on my forehead?
Or that my knee isnʼt gonna bleed like a mother-fucker?
Or that the bruise on my elbow is just a smudge of dirt?
When was the last time you smacked a vulnerable part of your
anatomy against a hard unforgiving object?
It HURT, right?
Now imagine everyone around you just dismissing your pain
with an idle wave of the hand and a pat on the head and an
“Oh, youʼre okay.”
And, even though you actually felt the lump rising on your head and
in your throat, you had to smile gamely through your discomfort,
because you could see that everyone was just so invested in
your not crying or making a fuss?
If you understand a fraction of what Iʼm trying to tell you,
then you understand that “okay” is exactly what I am not.
However…
I wouldn't say no to a lollipop.

Copyright © 2012 by Suzanne Weber. Excerpted from "To What Miserable Wretches Have I Been Born? Revenge Poetry For Babies And Toddlers," by Suzanne Weber. Published by Atria Books.

Oh, My God, He's a Fucking 12-Year-Old!

George W. Bush: 'Eight Years Was Awesome, And I Was Famous And I Was Powerful'

Awesome? Really?

Who could possibly used the word "awesome" to describe the presidency without linking it to the word "responsibility?" Like "being in charge of the world's sole remaining superpower is an awesome responsibility which I took very seriously."

But no, 8 years of warfare and recession are apparently just totally awesome 'cuz you get to be all famous and shit!

Dude, remember how awesome it was when you did nothing to even try and prevent the worst terrorist attack on our nation in history? And remember how totally rad it was when you sent thousands of our troops to their deaths in the wrong country? And wasn't it bitchin' when you decided like, sure what the fuck, let's become one of those countries that tortures people!




What other gems of wisdom did Bush crap out during this interview?

“I think it’s bad for the presidency to have former presidents bloviating, opining, telling people how it ought to be done. …

(someone got a word-a-day calender for his birthday!)

I don’t want to undermine our president — whoever’s president — and a former president can do that. … 

 Oh, well that's cool. That's pretty classy, actually. Don't want to do anything to undermine the current prez. That's pretty decent of ya. Unless you're about to. . . .

 Bush did add that he hopes Mitt Romney wins the presidency this November.

 

I don't want to do anything to undermine the current president, except for publicly stating that I hope he loses his re-election bid.

Jeezus, what a moron.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/78606.html#ixzz21JSAN7V2

Who Had Louie Gohmert?

 

Every time there's a highly-publicized bout of gun violence like there was last night, I hold an imaginary pool with the various people who live inside my skull a' la Herman's Head as to which scumbag will be the first to say that the real problem was not enough guns. Today's winner: whoever put their money on idiot douchenozzle Louie Gohmert.

Gohmert also said the tragedy could have been lessened if someone else in the movie theater had been carrying a gun and took down the lone shooter.
"It does make me wonder, with all those people in the theater, was there nobody that was carrying a gun that could have stopped this guy more quickly?" he asked.

Yes, this seems like the perfect time to argue for more guns being carried into more places. Stay classy, Louie!

Of course, it wasn't only the lack of guns to blame, it was also the lack of Jesus apparently.

During a radio interview on The Heritage Foundation's "Istook Live!" show, Gohmert was asked why he believes such senseless acts of violence take place. Gohmert responded by talking about the weakening of Christian values in the country.
"You know what really gets me, as a Christian, is to see the ongoing attacks on Judeo-Christian beliefs, and then some senseless crazy act of terror like this takes place," Gohmert said.

 Yes, the ongoing attacks, which are taking place only in the fevered dreams and paranoid fantasies of the Heritage Foundation types, are obviously the real culprit here.

"People say ... where was God in all of this?" Gohmert said. "We've threatened high school graduation participations, if they use God's name, they're going to be jailed ... I mean that kind of stuff. Where was God? What have we done with God? We don't want him around. I kind of like his protective hand being present."

So if I'm understanding you correctly, God let this happen because we hurt his feelings? We said he couldn't come to our high-school graduation so he was off pouting instead of stretching out his protective hand over Colorado? Is that what you're saying? Really? And this is the Almighty, right? The creator and ruler of the universe?  Acting like petulant child. Is this what  you really think God is like? And this version of God is the one you worship, huh? Wow.

Mitt's Tax Returns are a "Bleep."

One of my favorite scenes from the late, lamented Arrested Development, is this one, in which Buster rants about his mother, saying things so offensive that he has to be bleeped for about 10-15 seconds, while his siblings stand slack-jawed in horror:




Of course, he didn't really say anything that vile, but the producers of A.D. knew that a bleep is always funnier/more shocking than any four-letter word can ever be. What word, or combination of words, could someone say that you haven't already heard a million times?  "Bleep you" always sounds funny because you just think the person must have said something shockingly vulgar. But if you remove the bleep, oh yeah, it's just "fuck." You hear that a million times a day, it has no power to shock.


Mitt's tax returns are like a four-letter word. And his refusal to release them is like bleeping that word. Now the whole political world is wondering what could possibly be so shockingly horrible in those tax returns that he won't let anyone see them? But if he did release them, what could they possibly contain that would actually shock anybody?

He uses offshore accounts to dodge his tax obligations? We already know that.

He was running BAIN when he claims to have not been running BAIN?  Duh!

Big donations to hateful groups like N.O.M.? That's to be expected. If anything, it might help him with the malevolent base of his party, while anyone concerned with equality and human decency was already not going to vote for him.

His tax rate is lower than yours? A lot lower? Doesn't everyone already know that? Even without exploiting all kinds of loopholes, Mitt's income is all "carried interest" and capital gains and whatnot and everyone knows that un-earned income is taxed at a much lower rate than the money you earn by the sweat of your brow.

If he ever does release his tax returns, everyone's going to be mighty disappointed. There can't possibly be anything in there as damning as what people are imagining.

Oh, and this ain't helping:

Ann Romney: We've Given 'All You People Need To Know' About Family Finances

AP/The Huffington Post  |  Posted: 07/19/2012 8:54 am Updated: 07/19/2012 3:07 pm

Steve King is proud of his contribution to animal cruelty.

Steve King (R-IA) is a teabagging right-wing nut. So of course, he loooooves states' rights! According to Think Progress, he loves them so much that he apparently thinks that states maybe have the right to disregard Supreme Court decisions?

KING: Why should I care about the conclusions that have been brought forward by the Supreme Court if we can race from 1965, Connecticut having a Tenth Amendment right to establish a policy, a Supreme Court that creates a right to privacy that’s the foundation for mandated abortion, and here were are discussing whether we’re going to mandate everybody in America fund and provide that contraceptives. … Why should I care?

At least I think that's what he's trying to say. Either that or he thinks that Griswold v. Connecticu says the opposite of what it actually says. Anyway, he's a big old tenther.

Which made this news story pretty surprising:

(LA TIMES)

WASHINGTON — Taking aim at California's pioneering efforts to bolster animal safety, the House Agriculture Committee has moved to block states from imposing their own standards for agriculture products on producers from other states.

Rep. Steve King, an Iowa Republican who represents the country's leading egg-producing state, said he introduced the amendment because the California law and others like it "scrambles and creates a patchwork quilt of state regulations."
"If California wants to regulate eggs that come into the state, fine," King said. "But don't be telling the states that are producing a product that's already approved by the USDA or the FDA how to produce that product."
He said that the California requirement violates the commerce clause of the Constitution, which gives the federal government jurisdiction over interstate commerce issues.

Because if there's one thing right-wing Republicans love even more than states' rights, it's the commerce clause!  King's amendment is even called the “Protect Interstate Commerce Act”

 So this amendment must be all about protecting Interstate Commerce, right?

King released a statement Thursday night promising that his amendment “will ensure that radical organizations like the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and PETA are prohibited from establishing a patchwork of restrictive state laws aimed at slowly suffocating production agriculture out of existence."

Ooooh, that makes more sense. Of course, it's a bill to defend against an imaginary threat from relatively weak organizations like PETA against the super-powerful agricultural industry. Now that's the Steve King we've come to know and despise.

If you have the stomach for it, you can read all about King gloating about how his bill will stop animals from getting halfway-decent treatment in the loathsome "Daily Caller" here.