America is done

America is done because this is a thing that can actually occur in this country now:

Spokeswoman Defends Roy Moore By Touting ‘Non-Accusers’

 An actual paid spokeswoman for an actual United States Senate candidate, a candidate with an actual good chance of winning, mind you, can actually go on an actual news program and say this:

Discussing the multiple allegations against Moore, Jane Porter told CNN’s Poppy Harlow “we need to make it clear, there’s a group of non-accusers, that have not accused the judge of anything illegal.”

WHAAAAT????

I thought the defenders of Roy Moore had hit the bottom of the barrel when that minister guy said that while Moore was in Vietnam all the women his age got married to other fellas, so what was he gonna do, NOT feel up a middle-schooler?

“All of the ladies, or many of the ladies that he possibly could have married, were not available then, they were already married, maybe, somewhere,” said Benham.
This meant Moore had to look “in a different direction,” said Benham
“He did that because there is something about a purity of a young woman, there is something that is good, that’s true, that’s straight and he looked for that,” Benham said.

Ohhh my God, that is so horrible! Ohhhhh, I don't even want to think about it. These young ladies are so good and pure and innocent - what 34-year-old man wouldn't want to stick his dick in them?

But anyway, I thought that was the bottom of the barrel until this lady comes out with the "what about all the girls he didn't molest?" defense.

Hey, what about all the banks we didn't rob, hmm? Case dismissed, am I right?

I mean, America is just done. There's no coming back from this.

America is also done because an actual woman could actually write this in 2017 and get it published on a reputable site (at least it used to be.)

The Upside of Office Flirtation?

I’m living it.

By Allison Benedikt

Okay, so there's not necessarily anything wrong with "office flirtation." If Bob from IT flirts with Susan from accounts payable, there's probably nothing wrong with that. As long as they're peers and as long as Susan doesn't tell Bob to get lost.

This on the other hand. . .

When I was 23 years old, my boss would look down the gap at the waistband of my jeans when he walked past my desk. I was an entry-level fact-checker at my first magazine job, and he was an older and more powerful editor. My career, at the time, was in his hands. Once, when we had finished working on a story together, he suggested we get a drink to celebrate. It was a Friday night, and I remember feeling extremely nervous as we sat across from each other in a dark bar. He was flirting with me, I could tell. The next weekend, he asked me out again. A few days later, he kissed me on the steps of the West 4^th subway station without first getting my consent. We’ve now been happily married for 14 years and have three children.

Ewwwwwwww!!!!

Okay, first of all, a creepy lech trying to sneak a peek at your butt crack is NOT "flirting." And a man who "holds your career in his hands" inviting you for a drink is NOT okay. Because you probably felt like you couldn't say "no," right? So it's really not fair, is it? What if this disturbing, lecherous ass-looker hadn't been your dream man? What if you had been, say, a normal person who found his actions repulsive? And you'd still probably feel obligated to go with him for that "celebratory" drink, right? And, being a normal person, you'd probably be creeped out the whole time, right? And then you'd have to decide whether it was worth continuing to work there if this lecher is going to be there every day leering at you and trying to get you to go out with him. And you'd have to think about what would happen if you report him - would they believe you? Would you be fired? I mean, seriously, nothing good comes from a boss asking his employee to go to a bar with him after hours.

If a younger woman asks an older and more professionally powerful man for job advice, and that man ends up hitting on the woman, is that on its own harassment?

Yeah. If she goes to this guy in a professional capacity and he turns that into an opportunity to try to get laid? And he's got all the power in that situation? Yeah, how would that not be harassment?

Is it always wrong when a man is attracted to a woman at work, and acts on that attraction?

 Oh my God, seriously?
No, it is not wrong for a man to be attracted to a co-worker. It all depends on whether they are co-workers or one is the other's boss or outranks the other, and it depends on whether "acting on the attraction" consists of saying "hey, Susan, wanna go out this weekend?" or if you're Matt Lauer walking around the office with your dick out. And I think you know all this.
You know, this is the same bullshit I remember hearing from guys at work during the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill hearings. "Oh, man, no one know what you can even say anymore." "You can't even give someone a compliment!"And sadly, I expect that kind of bullshit from guys, but from a lady person?

But really, maybe the main reason that America is finished is because of shit like this:

White people are starting to feel oppressed and have started a movement called "It's OK to be White." https://t.co/1UeQ1WkbGf pic.twitter.com/Qj6zUa2VOu

— The Root (@TheRoot) December 3, 2017

When there is a large percentage of Americans who believe shit like "white people are being oppressed," there's just no future for a country like that. And frankly, no future is deserved. 
a

Dumb Things I saw Online

Dumb thing #1:

• Bernadette Is Surprisingly Stunning In Real Life

Whaaaaaat?? The pretty actress is attractive in real life too?
Oh, I never would have guessed because in the first picture she's wearing glasses so I couldn't possibly tell that she's a pretty actress! Just like I can't recognize Superman when he puts on a pair of spectacles.Oh, Superman you're a master of disguise!

Dumb thing # 2:

There is a website called CNS News. I don't know what CNS stands for, Crazy Nutjob Sociopaths, maybe? But pretty much EVERYTHING on this site is dumb. Dumb, dunb, dumb, dumb, dumb. And sometimes oddensive. But mostly dumb. Here's an example:

Charles Manson – The Penultimate Expression of the Progressive Worldview

By Alex McFarland | November 27, 2017 | 11:23 AM EST

Does Alex McFarland know what the word "penultimate" means?
He does not.
But that may be the least dumb part of this article.

He starts out by talking about how scary and evil Charles Manson was (low hanging fruit) concluding with this bold assessment:

 Manson’s documented history, the threatening, rambling interviews he would occasionally grant journalists, plus his immeasurably sinister demeanor all led to one conclusion: This guy is evil personified.

Ooh, going out on a limb there, Alex!

Then we get to the heart of the matter:

 

Manson’s life and legacy: Progressives should be proud
In recent years the country has grown less moral, less religious and less civilized. Traditional marriage is down, the institution itself has been redefined by the courts, belief in objective ethical boundaries is scorned in many classrooms, and there are more terror attacks and shootings than we can mentally—or emotionally—process. The country is less safe, less stable, and less … American.

Okay, for starters, America is a nation built on the twin horrors of slavery and genocide. Stability and safety are NOT quintessentially American qualities. The history of America is war violence and bloodshed.

And whose fault is it that there are more shootings than we can process? The NRA? The Republicans who do their bidding? A culture that fetishizes guns? Haha, just kidding. Obviously it's Hillary's fault!

But this re-imagined, dystopian America is the hard-won prize given us by the ACLU, American Atheists, Hillary Clinton, Al Franken and the left.

Oh, and Al Franken too, of course -  because. . . um. . . I guess because he's been in the news lately?

I mean, clearly it is the fault of the left that moral values are on the decline. Obviously it was the left that put a thrice3-married, serial adulterizing, admitted sex offender in the White House. And we all know it's the left that is tying themselves into rhetorical knots to defend a candidate who spent his 30's molesting junior-high-school girls.

America as it stands today is the fruit of decades of effort by these voices, not to mention secularists in the media, Hollywood, and countless professors at public universities who encourage their students toward the noble life of warring for “social justice”—as they alone define it.

 Yes, fighting for social justice. Fighting for racial and gender equality, for an end to discrimination against LGBT people. You know who else shared those lofty goals? Charles Manson!

Wait, did he? I mean, I've never actually read Helter Skelter, but I'm fairly sure that Manson was not trying to promote any sort of social justice. He was more about manipulating young people in to acting out against people he felt had wronged him. He was really more into getting vulnerable youth to commit violence towards people against whom he nursed a grudge. Damn, a few million dollars and a bad combover he could be Trump!

Also, if you're going to make the totally reasonable claim that terrorist attacks and mass shootings are the result of college professors agitating for justice, you might want to back that up with . . . I don't know, something? Anything? I mean, I get what you're saying. I get that neo-nazis running down an innocent woman with a car is the fault of Hollywood and state colleges, but for the lefty-looseys who sometimes read this blog, maybe some sort of evidence might be needed?

Think of how Charles Manson could rightly be seen as the penultimate expression of the progressive’s worldview

Think of how Charles Manson could rightly be seen as the penultimate expression of the progressive’s worldview: He was his own God. In fact, he sometimes claimed to be God.

Right. Good point. Just like every progressive from FDR to Bernie Sanders has claimed to be God. Oh, wait. I'm thinking of Jim Jones and David Koresh! Sorry!

Manson rejected organized religion, claiming he was both Jesus Christ and/or the Messiah. When he did quote the Bible, Manson misquoted it, twisted the words, and handled it selectively and self-servingly.

Really? Misquoted Scripture? Handled it selectively and self-servingly? Twisted the Words?
You mean like, for instance, using scripture to justify a 34-year-old man molesting a 14-year-old girl? Or using vague references to "sexual immorality" to determine that God condemns the gays?
That kind of selective twisting? Oh yeah, that just totally screams "progressives!"

Manson bragged he could start wars, purge and remake the culture, and preside over a world-wide reckoning.

Hmm, sounds a lot like someone we all know. . .

 

Someone who claims he can Make a nation Great again, can re-order the world so that his nation is atop the heap. Someone who casually tosses off threats to annihilate other nations entirely. Hmm, who could that progressive leader be?


Anyway, this post was going to be a lot longer, there were going to be more dumb things, but this article is so goddamm stupid that it broke my brain.

Annual Black Friday Rant

(yes, it's a re-run)

About this time each year, the FOX crowd starts trotting out their "War on Christmas" bs machine.

 Oh, they will fight to the death to defend Christmas from the imagined "attacks" it faces from people who, um. . . are willing to acknowledge that some people celebrate other holidays?

Or folks who want to maintain the separation of Church and State?
Oh no,  wait, I mean INFIDELS!!!! AMERICA-HATING INFIDELS!!!!!


And every Spring they pretend there's a "War on Easter" to be fought.

Heck, they've even discovered a "War on Halloween"





Even though the only people who tend to object to Halloween are evangelical Christians who object to the holiday's pagan roots and scary "occultic" overtones. In other words, FOX news viewers.

But what about Thanksgiving?

Because Thanksgiving is actually under attack by the obscene spectacle known as "Black Friday." People are actually having their Thanksgivings taken away from them by stores who now not only insist that their employees be at work before the crack of dawn the day after, but now don't even close for Thanksgiving itself.

Where is the outrage on the right?

Why does the "pro-family" crowd raise no objection to people being deprived of family time in the service of feeding America's frenzy of acquisitiveness and materialism?

What's a bigger affront to holiday tradition, a cashier wishing you "Happy Holidays" or having a Thanksgiving that goes like this:  "Gee, Grandma, everything smells so good, you've really outdone yourself this year. . . well, got to go sell some cheap electronics or I'll be unemployed. See you at Christmas hopefully!"

Well, time for me to go.  Those remote control drones aren't going to sell themselves!

Every year it gets worse and worse. The entire concept of "Black Friday" is grotesque enough to begin with. Once the term "Black Friday" went from being backroom retailer jargon to part of the everyday lexicon of normal people, we lost a part of our national soul. Once flyers began proudly announcing "Black Friday Sales!" we as a society should have stood up and said "No! We will not create a holiday based on celebrating your corporate profitability!" But we didn't. We allowed this indignity to infect our culture and it quickly spread like a cancer.

First it spread to Midnight of Thanksgiving day. Which of course meant that store employees were forced to leave their families by 10 or 11 that evening.

Then the stores began opening earlier and earlier Thursday evening until they got to the point where many stay open the entire holiday. As if it were just another day to make sales.

So where are the FOX News special reports on the "War on Thanksgiving?" Why does the one holiday that is actually under attack not see the same umbrage raised  as those holidays whose attacks are pure fiction?

Could it be because this war is being waged by large powerful corporations in the interest of increased profits? Instead of by "secular humanists" or whichever right-wing bogeymen are launching the imaginary wars on other holidays? Nah. . . couldn't be.

What it takes to make a sane person (me) side with a mango-hued shitgibbon

How did this happen?
How do I find myself on the same side as Il Douche?
How is it that there is a conflict between President Cartman and another person and I'm thinking that the other person is in the wrong?

I mean, the only way that could possibly happen is if that other person is an even bigger jackass than Cheeto Mussolini.
That could mean only one thing.


This guy is involved:



Yes, the braying jackass who is the latest person to have a Twitter feud with Dolt 45 is the preposterous Lavar Ball.

If you're not a basketball fan, this is who Lavar Ball is:

He is the father of a fairly talented NBA rookie named Lonzo Ball. A rookie who would be otherwise unremarkable had not his extravagantly ridiculous boob of a father not repeatedly made a spectacle of himself by publicly excoriating his son's collegiate coaches for not realizing the god-like prodigiousness of his son's basketball abilities and for allowing players other than Lonzo to sometimes touch the ball or even take a shot now and then.

And Lavar has famously said things like this about his son:

“I’ll tell you right now, he’s better than Steph Curry"

Forthe non-basketball fans, Steph Curry is the two-time NBA Most Valuable Player who has led his team to the last 3 NBA championships, winning 2 of the three.

 He is also considered by many to be the greatest shooter in NBA history.

 And the father of this little bundle of squeeee!

 But Lavar Ball said this about his son while he was a freshman at UCLA. No pressure, kid!

“To me ‘Zo is the best player in the world. … I don’t know if he can beat (LeBron James and Russell Westbrook) one on one, but I know he can beat them 5 on 5.”

Again, for the uninitiated, James and Westbrook are two of the best players of this or any era, both are sure bets to be voted into the Hall of Fame.


But, sure, his son is obviously better than either of these two guys, right?

Lonzo Ball can't make a shot. How much should Lakers fans be worried?

Ball is off to the coldest start in NBA history. But that doesn’t mean he’s a bust.

by Kristian Winfield@Krisplashed Nov 9, 2017, 12:42pm EST

Ooooh, ouch!



Of course, I'm not sure we should really expect expert analysis from a man who made this claim:

“Back in my heyday, I would kill Michael Jordan one-on-one.”

despite never having played in the NBA and averaging an entire TWO POINTS per game in college.

And that is really just the tip of the iceberg for this half-witted nincompoop who never saw a camera or microphone he couldn't get in front of. If you want a chuckle, you can read a few more of his quotable quotes here:
https://www.cbssports.com/nba/photos/ranking-lavar-balls-most-outrageous-quotes/2/


Anyway, that's the guy who's got Twitter beef with Orange Julius Caesar. And for the first time probably ever, someone is going up against tRump and is actually the guy in the wrong.

A little background. Ball's other son and two of his UCLA teammates were arrested for shoplifting at a mall in China. They were facing up to 10 years in Chinese prison. Hair Furor made a call to the Chinese government and got them released. End of story, right? Well, you'd think so. But then I saw this on Twitter.

Do you think the three UCLA Basketball Players will say thank you President Trump? They were headed for 10 years in jail!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 15, 2017

Which is really beneath the dignity of the office, but we're pretty much used to that. I mean, really it's so pathetically needy, so desperate for validation, but he does have a point. (God damn, I never thought I'd say that) these three young men really should thank the guy who saved their asses from Chinese prison. And thank him they did,at a press conference later that day.

"To President Trump and the United States government, thank you for taking the time to intervene on our behalf," he added. "We really appreciate you helping us out." (http://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/15/sport/ucla-basketball-players-statements/index.html)

And that was that.
End of story, and everyone lives happily ever after.





No, of course not, because we are dealing with the two biggest jackasses in America here.
So I guess I shouldn't have been surprised to see this Tweet:

Now that the three basketball players are out of China and saved from years in jail, LaVar Ball, the father of LiAngelo, is unaccepting of what I did for his son and that shoplifting is no big deal. I should have left them in jail!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 19, 2017

Seriously? Ball is being a dick about this?

"Who?" Ball told ESPN when asked about Trump's role in the situation. "What was he over there for? Don't tell me nothing. Everybody wants to make it seem like he helped me out."

Really? I mean, look, I hate the guy too, but he did get your son out of prison.
I mean, if Charles Manson somehow got my son out of prison I'd be all like "thank you, Mr. Manson. thank you very much, Mr. Manson," and then I'd go right back to thinking he's a bag of scum. (update: a dead bag of scum)

“As long as my boy’s back here, I’m fine,” Ball told ESPN. “I’m happy with how things were handled. A lot of people like to say a lot of things that they thought happened over there. Like I told him, ‘They try to make a big deal out of nothing sometimes.’ I’m from L.A. I’ve seen a lot worse things happen than a guy taking some glasses.

What the?
How is that the point?
Whether taking glasses is a "big deal" or not, your son was ARRESTED for it, your son was facing JAIL TIME for it. Whether you think that jail time was warranted is absolutely not relevant  at all.

“Did he go visit them in jail?” Ball asked. “Did you go visit them in jail? If you went to visit them in jail then I would say, ‘Thank you.’”

Did he visit them?!?! Did he visit them?!?!

The man is the President of the United States







Sorry. That's hard for me to say, but it's true Donald "grab 'em by the p***sy" Trump is the President of the United States of America

You think the President should have taken time out of his busy schedule of embarrassing our nation on a world stage to go visit some shoplifters in jail? Who the fuck do you think you are? You think your stupid shoplifting son is so important that visiting his dumb thieving ass in jail should be some sort of priority for the President of the United States?

God damn it Ball, look what you've made me do!
You've got me siding with the Orange Menace!
You're in a beef with the giant toddler and I'M ON HIS SIDE.

Defenses of Roy Moore

People have really been coming up with lots of creative ways to defend utter scumbag Roy Moore against charges that he assaulted a 14-year-old girl and was constantly hitting on other high school girls when he was in his thirties.


There's the Biblical defense.

Alabama state official defends Roy Moore, citing Joseph and Mary: ‘They became parents of Jesus’

Actually, if you knew the first thing about the Gospel, you'd know that Joseph was NOT the father of Jesus.

He was Jesus' stepfather. If you're gonna be a Bible-thumper, you at least should have that basic bit of knowledge about the book you're thumping.

Also, yes. It was common for teen girls to be married off to grown men back in Bible times. Since women were seen mainly as fetus incubators, you wanted to marry one with as many fertile years left as possible. And since the husband's main responsibility was to provide monetarily, you would want to marry a man who had established himself in his career . No one wants to marry a broke-ass apprentice/
At any rate, what went on in the First Century is probably not really relevant to today's world. But nice try, though.


Oh, wait. there's more Bible defense?

“Take the Bible. Zachariah and Elizabeth for instance. Zachariah was extremely old to marry Elizabeth and they became the parents of John the Baptist,” Ziegler said

Okay, I don't know where you're getting that idea. As far as I can find, the story of Elizabeth and Zechariah only appears in the Book of Luke (as well as some non-canonical books) Here is what is said about their ages:

⁵ There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judaea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abia: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. . .

⁷ And they had no child, because that Elisabeth was barren, and they both were now well stricken in years. . .

¹⁸ And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years.

So, that's it. They were both old. That's all the information we have as to their ages. Nowhere does it say "and then Zacharias said unto the Lord 'I am an old man, but check out my hot, young wife!'"

Anyway, there are bound to be better defenses than the Bible.

There's the "well, in some countries. . ." defense.




And the lawyer also used the "hey, my wife was only 21 when we started dating" defense.


There's the "technically, this wasn't illegal" defense.

Breitbart editor: The '16-year-old and the 18-year-old have no business' in Roy Moore sexual misconduct story

“The 16-year-old and the 18-year-old have no business in that story because those are women of legal age of consent,” Breitbart editor-at-large Joel Pollak said on MSNBC.

Yes, thanks to Alabama's super-creepy age of consent laws, a 16-year-old girl was technically a legal adult. And we all know that as long as something is not illegal, it's not immoral enough to warrant a removal from office. I mean, it's not like he had a consensual affair with a 21-year-old intern, am I right? Now THAT's an impeachable offense!

Also, not to quibble, but whether a 16-year-old girl is "legal" or not, it is still sexual assault to do what she says Moore did.

Nelson said Moore groped her and tried to force her head onto his crotch. Nelson says she yelled and tried to leave the car, but Moore locked the door. "I was not going to allow him to force me to have sex with him," Nelson said. "I was terrified. I thought he was going to rape me.

If she was 16 or 26 or 106, that is a crime. That is a sexual assault. That should earn you jail time, not a Senate seat.

Aslo, you say the 16 and 18-year-olds were "legal." What about the 14-year-old?
And "shut up, that's what" is not a good enough answer.


Oh, and then Pollak pivots to the "I don't understand what words mean" defense:

“If this story is true, and I think that any story about sexual misconduct, especially with someone who is underage, is very serious — why would the Washington Post wrap it with all kinds of perfectly legitimate relationships as well as all kinds of other political clutter?” Pollak asked. “You said yourself at the start of the segment that he’s being accused of relationships with teenagers. Now, to me, that’s not accurate."

Yes, totally inaccurate to refer to "teenagers" when the girls you're talking about are sixTEEN, sevenTEEN, and eighTEEN  years old.

Of course, there's the tried-and-true Blame The Victim defense. Hey, it's a classic for a reason, right?

The original Tweet has been taken down, but some asshat named Jim Jennings (@jjenningsusa) Tweeted this gem:

"Some 14 year old girls are IMPOSSIBLY flirtatious and sophisticated."

A different twist on the victim-blaming defense comes from GOP County Chairman Riley Seiberhener:

Alabama Geneva County GOP chairman Riley Seibenhener, who called me back, says he doesn't believe the allegations are true, but if they're true he won't support him - but, at the same time, it's not "forcible rape."

"I know that 14-year-olds don't make good decisions," he adds.

— Daniel Dale (@ddale8) November 10, 2017

 — Daniel Dale (@ddale8) November 10, 2017


 14-year-olds don't make good decisions. Like it would have been a much smarter decision to have NOT been molested by a 32-year-old attorney.
Also, the 32-year-old lawyer could have decided to NOT engage in sexual activity with a high school freshman, but I guess no one expects him to make good decisions.


And taking victim-blaming one step further into the sewer, Alabama State Rep. Ed Henry goes with  "threatening to prosecute the victims"

“If they believe this man is predatory, they are guilty of allowing him to exist for 40 years. I think someone should prosecute and go after them. You can’t be a victim 40 years later, in my opinion,” Henry said.

See, it's the girls' fault for letting the grown man get away with it for all these years. Oh, it's so simple! I see it all now! Obviously, we can't expect a young district attorney of 32 to be responsible for his own actions. It's the powerless high school girls who have the responsibility to take him down.  Because obviously everyone would have totally believed them and not tried to put the blame on them, and. . . well not in 2017, obviously, but in the 1970's people were much more "woke" about these things.

Anyway, there are the usual "she's lying" defenses.Along with the  "oh, and so is she. And her. Yep, her too!"
There's the "but it was so long ago" defense.
There's the "political witch hunt" defense.
All the usual bullshit. I can't even look at any more of this.


Judge Moore -
You're guilty.
You know you're guilty.
Just drop out of the race. Stop lying and stop letting/encouraging other people to lie on your behalf. You're old, just retire. Just go away.
You're guilty.
Have some sense of shame.