Billy Ray Cyrus

So, a member of the Cyrus family finally did something sensible.

Miley Cyrus quits Twitter

Teen star Miley Cyrus says she decided to delete her Twitter account so that she could keep her personal life just that – personal.

Seems reasonable. One of the tough parts about being rich and famous has to be giving up a lot of your privacy. So if a 16-year old "singer" decides she wants to reclaim some of hers, who could possibly object?

Billy Ray Cyrus pleads with daughter Miley Cyrus to re-open her deleted Twitter account

Oh, sure her father.
Wait, what?

Why would her creepy, parasitic dad want her to keep twittering?



"Miley. You are a light in a world of darkness. You were born 'Destiny Hope Cyrus' for a reason," her father, Billy Ray Cyrus, tweeted Thursday night. "You can't leave everyone now. We r countin on u."

Oh, I get it. As any parent can tell you, your daughter is important, but not as important as kids with money to spend. And why speak face to face with your daughter when you can drag the conversation into public via the twitter?

"I understand 'it is true one bad apple spoils the bunch,'" papa Cyrus continued. "But listen to the words of your songs 'Stand... for what ya believe in'...Remember?"

Soon after that he wrote, "Words can hurt worse than bullets. True. All the more reason to take this tool and tweet 'I'm comin to Chicago and askin kids to stop killin kids.'"

What the hell? First of all, dude, seriously. Not even Miley Cyrus is going to take inspiration from a Miley Cyrus song, okay? Secondly, what the hell? Do you really think any of that made sense? Third, Miley Cyrus is coming to Chicago to try to curb gang violence? Really? Miley Cyrus? Oh, yeah that's who the bangers are gonna listen to! Jim Brown and Tookie Williams couldn't dissuade them from shooting each other, but a little slice of Tennessee white bread jailbait should put them on the straight and narrow!

So if anyone out there is running for Father of the Year, good news! I'm pretty sure Billy Ray is out of the running.

Ronald Reagan? Really?

Ever since the announcement that Barack Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize, there has been a lot of grumbling in the press that he did not deserve it.(and they have a point)

But this weird corollary has come along with that assessment, and that is that Ronald Reagan should have won one.

No, really!

It was always absurd that Ronald Reagan, whose political project led to the end of the gulag and the fall of the Berlin Wall, and who gambled his personal standing in the world for a system that would protect the common man from annihilation in a nuclear missile attack, could not win it. [The Nobel Peace Prize]

--Peggy Noonan, the Wall Street Journal.

you have got to be kidding me -- Ronald Reagan didn't get one, but Barack Obama, nominated 12 days after he was sworn in, gets a Nobel Peace Prize. . . but Ronald Reagan, could I just ask you to respond to that? The man who helped bring the Cold War to an end did not -- [win the Nobel peace Prize]

--Chip Reid, CBS News



Reagan deserves the Nobel Prize, first, because he showed again the benefits of promoting "Peace through strength." . . .That relates to the second reason why Ronald Reagan deserves the Nobel Peace Prize: As President, he successfully conducted himself as a man of peace.

--Bruce Chapman, Seattle Post-Intelligencier


Ronald Reagan also went to Berlin and made a plea for world peace and integration. Reagan played a role in liberating Eastern Europe, and articulated a vision of a world without nuclear weapons. Did Reagan get a Nobel for any of this? Or share Mikhail Gorbachev's? No.

--Ben Adler & Daniel Stone, Newsweek

Damn Liberal media!

Okay, off the top of my head, here are a few reasons why maybe, just maybe Ronald Reagan didn't get the Nobel Peace Prize.

1) Invaded Grenada for no good reason.

2) Sent the marines into Lebanon. (later "cut and ran")

3) propped up bloodthirsty dictatorships in Guatemala and Argentina.

4) fought a proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. (arming the mujahidin who would later become the Taliban and Al Queda)

5) Sent chemical weapons to Sadam Hussein, provided intelligence on where to deploy them.

6) Sold missiles to Iran, funneled the profits to Nicaraguan terrorists.

Also, Reagan had little if anything to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The USSR's implosion was thought to be inevitable long before Reagan took office. And when their house of cards finally did collapse, it was George H.W. Bush in the White House, not Reagan.

So can we please stop pretending that Reagan deserved the Nobel Peace Prize? I'm not trying to say that Barack Obama deserved it either, but come on! Reagan?

Who's Stupider? (Nobel Prize Edition)

Thank you, and welcome to a special Nobel Peace Prize edition of Who's Stupider?
I'm your special guest host, A Beanie Baby Guy Smiley!

Our first contestant comes to us from the worst right-wing rag in the country where he enjoys being wrong about everything and wearing a permanent shit-eating smirk, please welcome Bill Kristol.

Bill, why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself?

Well, I'm famous because I had a famous father. My famous father (Irving Kristol) pulled some strings to get me into Harvard, used his connections to get me a job in the Nixon administration, then arranged for me to get teaching jobs at Penn and the Kennedy School of government. I'm a firm believer in strict meritocracy and fierce opponent of affirmative action. (source)

Okay, I think that tells us pretty much all we need to know about you.

Let's welcome our returning champion, Erick Erickson!

Erick, let's start with you, what's your reaction to President Obamawinning the Nobel Peace Prize?

I did not realize the Nobel Peace Prize had an affirmative action quota for it, but that is the only thing I can think of for this news. There is no way Barack Obama earned it in the nominations period.

Ooh, tough break Erick! The affirmative action line proves you are kinda racist and kinda an asshole, but you accidentally made a good point that Obama certainly didn't do anything in the first month of his presidency to deserve this prestigious award. So let's ask the judges, can we accept Erick's answer?






































OOh, sorry, that's a thumbs down from Simon, Caesar and Fonzie! I'm afraid you're disqualified from this round, Erick.










Okay, Bill the floor is yours. All you have to do is say anything remotely stupid and you'll win. Whadda ya got, Bill?

if the Swedes Norwegians wanted to give the Nobel Peace Prize to an American, it would have been been better to give it to Sen. John McCain for having the guts to push through the surge in Iraq.

Wow! You came here to win, Bill! That may have been the stupidest thing we have heard yet on this show! Complaining that the Nobel Peace Prize was not given for war-mongering? Amazing work! You're going to go far in this competition.

Ladies and gentlemen, today's winner: Bill "the man who is wrong about everything" Kristol!

Mad Men

Well, this is just sad:

Jon Hamm's Mad Men character has just topped a new list of top men.

Over 500,000 voters on AskMen.com named the early 1960s-era sales executive Draper the Most Influential Man of 2009.

I don't know what the fuck Askmen.com is or what sort of douchey wankers they surveyed, but this is just pathetic.

Can someone please explain the appeal of Mad Men to me?

Oh, cool! They're smoking cigarettes!

At Work!










They're drinking booze!

At Work!



















They're making unwanted sexual advances!

At Work!

Who cares if there's no real plot to speak of, check out those cool suits! Just like they wore in the sixties!


Feh!
It seems to me that this show's popularity is based largely on a creepy kind of nostalgia for a time when a man could slap his secretary on the ass, tell her "you're not paid to think, honey!" then meet his mistress for a quickie over lunch. Otherwise I really don't get it. Seriously, if anyone gets why this show is popular, please explain it to me.

You Can't Reason with Unreasonable People.

An open letter to President Obama and the Democrats in both houses.

Dear Democrats,

It's nice that you want to play bipartisanism, it really is. But the people you are trying to play with, they are never going to play with you. These are not your father's conservatives. These are not reasonable people. Ever since Newt Gingrich led his gang of yahoos into Washington, the right wing of the Republican Party (and the right wing is pretty much all that is left of the party in DC) sees every issue as a take-no-prisoners, winner-take-all deathmatch. They will never compromise with you.

You see, they have convinced themselves that they are on the side of good, and anyone who disagrees with them is neccessarilly on the side of evil. And there is no in-between. See, conservatives in general tend to see everything in stark black and white, good and evil, us-vs-them terms. And these extreme right wingers naturally take that to the extreme. So if you put forth a bill that included free blow jobs for all Republican Senators, they would still vote against it. They would rather lose the vote then be seen as accommodating or compromising with the forces of evil.

Let me give you an example. Are you familiar with Dede Scozzafava? She is a Republican running for Congress from New York State. According to her local paper, "Assemblywoman Dede Scozzafava has introduced a number of bills to the State Assembly that would enact harsher penalties for criminals, fill holes in the justice system, and help keep repeat offenders off the streets." So, she's a good ol' fashioned tough-on-crime Republican, right? But apparently on some social issues she differs with the hard right, like she doesn't really hate the gay people. Now, according to Politico.com, "many conservative groups are rallying behind Doug Hoffman, a third-party candidate running on the Conservative Party line, even though their support for him might pave the way for a Democratic takeover of the seat recently vacated by GOP Rep. John McHugh."

That's right, they would rather lose the seat to the democrats than support a Republican who is less than ideologically pure. “She’s not even a moderate. She is a radical, ultraleftist who has an ‘R’ next to her name,” said Marjorie Dannenfelser, chairwoman of Susan B. Anthony List, an organization that backs female candidates who oppose abortion and has endorsed Hoffman.

Okay, so if they think that a fellow Republican is a "radical ultra-leftist" because she disagrees on a few issues, that should tell you a bit about where these nuts are coming from.

The good news is, you don't need them. Democrats have the majority in both houses, including a filibuster-proof super-majority in the Senate, along with a Democratic president. You can pass whatever you want. You could pass a law making it illegal for kittens to be adorable, and there's nothing they could do (although you'd have a hard time enforcing that one!) So pass a fucking health care bill. And make a strong public option the centerpiece of the legislation. They're going to scream and wail and call it communism and fascism and socialism and Satanism and everything else under the sun, but you know what? They're going to do that anyway, no matter what you do. And they don't matter.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28071.html#ixzz0TOTqyB5r

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/28071.html#ixzz0TO7b7PUZ