Thursday, November 28, 2019
Sunday, November 24, 2019
Sunday Morning Playlist
Today's category, it being Sunday and some of y'all needing to get some religion, is songs that are not gospel songs but make reference to Jesus.
Thursday, November 21, 2019
Responsibilities
Marriage comes with certain responsibilities. For instance, it is my wife's responsibility to ensure that I don't leave the house looking like a complete twit.
Without eternal vigilance, this could absolutely happen here.
Also, she is responsible for making sure that one of us pays the bills so that we don't have to live in a cardboard box. At the movies, it's her responsibility to tell me when the scary part is over so I can safely open my eyes. And she is responsible for preventing me going to the SPCA and coming home with a dozen kittens and a dozen puppies.(she knew who she was getting when she married me.) And I thought that was pretty much the extent of her marital responsibilities. But apparently, I missed one. Apparently, it is the responsibility of the wife to ensure that her husband does not associate with known sex traffickers.
Which, I guess, if left to his own devices, any man would do? Apparently, it's pretty easy to accidentally stumble into the apartment of a pedophile pimp and just decide that it's too inconvenient to leave so you stay the night and then Scandal!
Well, according to the Spectator's Toby Young anyway.
Prince Andrew should have married someone like my wife
Yeahhhhh, that's the problem with Prince Andrew. He didn't marry well. You know, you meet someone, you fall in love, you get married, and you never stop to think "is she the kind of woman who will keep me from spending the night in the apartment of a procurer of underage sex slaves?" You know how it is, when you're in love, it seems like she can do no wrong, next thing you know, you're waking up in Epstein's guest room and you think you may have accidentally committed a sex crime of some type and you're all "Dammit, Eileen! Why didn't you stop me?"
Like many people, I watched Prince Andrew’s Newsnight meltdown with mounting disbelief. Why had he agreed to do it? It wasn’t as if the general public was clamouring for an answer about what he was doing on the night he’d been accused of having sex with a 17-year-old victim of Jeffrey Epstein.
The day after Prince Andrew’s interview was broadcast I got a call from Good Morning Britain. Did I fancy coming on to defend Prince Andrew in a debate? Instead of saying no, I started to discuss what I might say. If he believes himself to be innocent and has a good alibi, as he appears to have, it’s kind of understandable that he would want to clear his name.
Because I guess in the British legal system, as long as the perpetrator believes himself to be innocent, no crime has been committed.
At this point, I’d pretty much talked myself into it, but before saying yes I glanced up at my wife who was sitting opposite me. Caroline was shaking her head furiously and running her finger back and forth across her throat. ‘Can I call you back in a minute?’ I said.See, now if Prince Andrew had been married to someone like this Caroline, instead of Fergie, she would have told him "are you crazy? Epstein is the most vile scumbag in America. You can't go hang out at his apartment!" And that would have been that!
When I hung up, I got the force nine gale. ‘Are you fucking insane? He’s the most reviled man in Britain.’
‘Are you fucking insane? He’s the most reviled man in Britain.’Oh. Yeah. It's just awful how no one wants to defend a sex offender who victimized teen girls. It's really hard to understand.
‘But I feel a bit sorry for him. He’s being subjected to the Two Minutes Hate and I know what that’s like. Literally no one is defending him apart from Fergie.’
‘Yeah, and there’s a good reason for that. Honestly, you amaze me sometimes. It’s as if alienating 99 per cent of the country isn’t enough for you. You have to hunt down that last 1 per cent and make sure you piss them off, too.’
Okay, I don't know anything about this Toby Young character, and I didn't really care to. But now, I really need to find out what this man did to piss off 99 percent of Britain. But let's put a pin in that for the moment.
I called the booker back and politely declined. But this exchange left me feeling even more sympathetic towards Andrew. If only he’d married someone level-headed and sensible like I did.
Really. The person to whom you are sympathetic in this situation is not the victim, Virginia Giuffre, but the perpetrator, Prince Andrew. Really.
And yes, again, the problem with Andrew is not that he associates with a pedophile pimp. The problem is not that he forced himself on an underage girl at least three times. No, the problem is that he didn't marry someone level-headed and sensible enough to warn him off doing those things.
Okay, so let's circle back to the whole pissing off 99% of Britain thing. I can probably guess why people hate him, I already hate him and I've only just met him, but maybe a quick Googling will shed some light on this.
Yep!
Here are a couple things he tweeted about his Top Chef co-host Padma Lakshmi:
Eeeeewwwww!
And not just hers, this dude seems to think he is entitled to comment on everyone's bosoms.
What else has he found appropriate to post publicly on Twitter? Glad you asked!
Just think of what this sick twitch would have put out there had he been married to a less level-headed and sensible woman!
This wasn’t the first time Caroline had saved my bacon. When she learned that my career had been derailed because of sophomoric things I’d said on social media, she literally snatched the phone out of my hands and deleted the Twitter app. Admittedly, she did let me reinstall it about a week later, but only after I’d promised never to tweet after I’d had a glass of wine.
Jesus Christ, this is you sober?
I'm not sure Caroline is really fulfilling all her wifely responsibilities after all.
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Laura Ingraham sinks to a new low
Laura Ingrahams sports expert is a guy who wrote a book telling guys to go to hospitals looking to pick up rape victims while they're vulnerable pic.twitter.com/kMFDS3n1Vb— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) November 19, 2019
Well that can't be true, can it?
I mean no one could possibly be that disgusting, could he?
— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) November 19, 2019
Oh my God.
That has to be the worst thing anyone has ever said on the subject of -- wait, what now?
This can not be real. Can it?seems like a cool dude, just joking about murdering women for the lulz pic.twitter.com/KbclltZLWB— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) November 19, 2019
Just really normal stuff going on here pic.twitter.com/uIx4Foeec9— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) November 19, 2019
Holy Fuck! When it's a relief that a "person" is only talking about murdering an animal. . .
Okay, this brings up a few questions.
1. How in the HELL is this guy being brought on TV to opine on someone else's character? This guy is pure sewage. And yes, I'm sure that he's just "joking" about murdering women and preying on rape victims, but you have to have a soul of pure shit to find any of those things funny.
2. How is this guy still doing a sports talk radio show? According to Wikipedia:
Richard Clay Travis (born April 6, 1979) is an American sports journalist, writer, television analyst, and the morning radio show host for nationwide Fox Sports Radio from 6-9 a.m. ET and appears on FS1's daily sports gambling show Lock It In.
I mean, I get that is's FOX, but don't they usually hold their entertainment ventures to a higher standard of decency than their Turd Reich Propaganda Network? Do the people at FS1 know that they are employing a "man" who authored this barrage of filth?
Just Clay Travis saying Clay Travis things pic.twitter.com/xgCwMdzx0K— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) November 19, 2019
3. Laura Ingraham is a woman, right? I mean, I can't prove it. She may well be a heap of writhing serpents stuffed into a tight dress to resemble a human woman. Like Vincent Adultman if Bojack Horseman had been written by H.P. Lovecraft. But more than likely, she is an actual woman. And she has daughters, doesn't she? How is she just gonna sit there and have a conversation with the guy who wrote this:
How badly would your soul have to be corroded to be willing to be in the same room with a scumbag like this, let alone promote him to your audience? Does your racism really overrule everything else that much? And seriously, you couldn't find another racist with some sort of sports background to talk about Colin Kaepernick? How do you look your daughter in the eye? How do you look at yourself in the mirror? (Oh, right. No reflection.)Clay really has some interesting thoughts on age of consent pic.twitter.com/YkbMJ3xqor— Andrew Lawrence (@ndrew_lawrence) November 19, 2019
and question # 4:
How did we get to the point where doing this
is not a career-ender?
Thursday, November 14, 2019
Stupid People Say Stupid Things
Stupid person #1: Joe Biden
Biden on getting things done post Trump: "With Donald Trump out of the way, you’re going to see a number of my Republican colleagues have an epiphany. Mark my words. Mark my words,”— Liz Goodwin (@lizcgoodwin) November 6, 2019
For God's sake! This guy worked beside Barack Obama for EIGHT YEARS of Republican fuckery, and he honestly thinks that they're going to go back to being the party of Eisenhower after Il Douche is gone? How does he not remember 8 years of constant obstruction, of filibuster after filibuster, of constant threats to shut down the government if these petulant toddlers didn't get their way? Has he forgotten the entire Merrick Garland episode? Does he not remember the Tea Party? Has he forgotten Newt Gingrich? What kind of fantasy world does Biden live in? And can I live there too? Please? It sounds so very nice.
And speaking of Joe Biden, here's stupid person #2, Ana Navaro:
Disagree with him all you want. Support him or don’t. But after 4 years of Trump rallies, watching this @JoeBiden townhall feels like chicken soup for the soul. The man is decent, authentic and gives a damn about other humans. How refreshing.— Ana Navarro-Cárdenas (@ananavarro) November 12, 2019
Yes, Joe Biden is like chicken soup. And chicken soup is great if you've got the sniffles. But their is an infection raging through this country's bloodstream and serious medical help is needed. Joe Biden is chicken soup when what the country needs is penicillin.
Also, Joe may "give a damn about other humans," but he will never love other humans as much as he loves the big banks and credit card companies. And he certainly didn't give a damn about Anita Hill.
Also, are you implying that giving a damn about other people is something that is exclusive to Joe Biden? Do you think that Warren, Sanders, Buttiegieg, Harris, Booker, etc. don't give a damn about other people? Of course they do. A lack of sociopathy would only be notable in a candidate running in the Republican primary. On our side, it's pretty much a prerequisite.
Stupid person # 3: Rep. Tom Reed (R-obvioulsy)
This is what an actual sitting Congressman had to say to Chuck Todd on the subject of impeachment:
REED: When you're talking about oversight and the roles in oversight, i think sharing that information and complying is something to do. but when you're talking about impeachment, over turning the duly elected decision of the American people. you know, you're going to have that separation of powers that rightfully needs to exist. That's at the heart of our democracy and sustainability of our government is to have that checks and balances and that separation of powers. So, you know, if they were pursuing oversight and not impeachment, that's a different conversation.
Ughhhhh. . . I don't even know what the Hell point he thinks he's making. That somehow an impeachment inquiry violates the Constitutional checks and balances and separation of powers? Impeachment - the process prescribed by the Constitution precisely for an occasion such as this - violates the Constitution?
Or is it just that Congress is within its rights to ask for information to be shared with them, but that impeachment is somehow some sort of violation?
I really don't get it. And neither did Chuck Todd.
TODD: I don't understand what the difference is between that argument you're making. I mean, the -- in order to make the decision about impeachment, in order to -- which is essentially a grand jury indictment, you do an investigation to get that. That's what they're doing here. So part of what they're doing is oversight. They haven't voted on impeachment yet.
Wow, pushback from Chuck Todd! Now that's something you don't see every day!
REED: Yeah but, Chuck, but oversight doesn't result in the turning back of the will of the American people from a duly held election. You are then destabilizing the American democracy because now people are going to say what? I voted for my president who was duly elected and the powerful in Washington wants to overturn that election.
You know, in 2000, I voted for my president who was duly elected and the Supreme Court in Washington overturned that election and Democracy wasn't destablized - scratch that, yeah it was. But I don't remember hearing a single Republican voicing concern over it. And the Supreme Court choosing the president is actually NOT a Constitutional check or balance and actually does violate the separation of powers.
And it's good to know that there are people in state government dedicated to insuring that the supply of stupid people never runs short:
Ohio House passes bill allowing student answers to be scientifically wrong due to religion
This can't be what it sounds like, can it?
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WKRC) - Ohio lawmakers are weighing in on how public schools can teach things like evolution.
The Ohio House on Wednesday passed the "Student Religious Liberties Act." Under the law, students can't be penalized if their work is scientifically wrong as long as the reasoning is because of their religious beliefs.
Oh my God.
Wrong is wrong. Incorrect is incorrect. It doesn't matter why you got the wrong answer, the answer is still wrong.
This is the sort of thing that conservatives used to rail against. "Facts don't care about your feelings" as the loathsome Ben Shapiro likes to say incessantly. A = A was like the first rule of Ayn Rand's idiotic "philosophy." Now they want to make teachers pretend that wrong is right so that the children of religious fanatics don't get their feeling hurt?
Under the law, students can't be penalized if their work is scientifically wrong as long as the reasoning is because of their religious beliefs.
Instead, students are graded on substance and relevance.
So. . . the words "substance" and "relevance" just don't have definitions anymore? What could be more substantive than the correctness or incorrectness of the answer? And relevance? Does that mean that even though the answer was completely wrong, it was an answer to that particular question? Like if the question is how many paws does a cat have? and I answer "seven," that's wrong, but if my book of scripture says that cats have seven paws. . . no, wait. If "seven" is AN answer to the question "how many paws does a cat have? then that's relevant? Is that it? Did my answer have substance? Fuck, I can't imagine being a teacher in Ohio trying to grade the papers of these little snake handlers!
Is this seriously got a chance of becoming the actual law?
Every Republican in the House supported the bill. It now moves to the Republican-controlled Senate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)