Ding! Ding! Ding! Roger Eggbert Goes OFF!

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20110414/REVIEWS/110419990

Poor Roger Eggbert. Forced to sit through such tedium when all he really wants is his leftism spoon-fed to him in some pablum. I'm not sure when he turned into such an asshole, but he really is.

I feel like my arm is all warmed up and I don’t have a game to pitch. I was primed to review "Atlas Shrugged." I figured it might provide a parable of Ayn Rand’s philosophy that I could discuss. For me, that philosophy reduces itself to: "I’m on board; pull up the lifeline."

Yes, I'm sure that's exactly what it sounds like to you. Oddly enough, you share that view entirely - remember when you, Mister Rich Man, wrote that piece about how you didn't want to be kept alive artificially and then you almost died but your wife said not to pull the plug? And after much expensive intervention (which I'm sure didn't cost you a dime in premiums or expenses; thus we could ALL afford it) you lived after all and you were glad? And this is why you want all of us to be forced into Obamacare and lose our good insurance plans? Yeah, pot? Meet kettle. Ebert's on board, pull up the lifeline. Hypocrite.

There are however people who take Ayn Rand even more seriously than comic-book fans take "Watchmen." I expect to receive learned and sarcastic lectures on the pathetic failings of my review.

No sirrah, I shall merely point and laugh. And express my contempt.

And now I am faced with this movie, the most anticlimactic non-event since Geraldo Rivera broke into Al Capone’s vault.

Yeah I remember that. Millions of people watched it. And his career is still cooking along last I checked. Even if he is a bit of a dingbat.

I suspect only someone very familiar with Rand’s 1957 novel could understand the film at all

Ok, so first off, you didn't understand it. I wouldn't brag about that, but OK - we shall keep in mind that you do not understand what you are reviewing. As a matter of fact, you should have stopped right there.

and I doubt they will be happy with it.

So OK. Let’s say you know the novel, you agree with Ayn Rand, you’re an objectivist or a libertarian, and you’ve been waiting eagerly for this movie. Man, are you going to get a letdown. It’s not enough that a movie agree with you, in however an incoherent and murky fashion. It would help if it were like, you know, entertaining?

Well, to be entertained it is likely one would need to actually understand the film in the first place, no? Normally if I don't understand something I don't feel justified in mocking it. I would normally at least bother clicking a few links to understand the subject matter at least a tad first; maybe even ask a few questions. As to people who understand it not liking it?

Well, sorry Dilbert but that's a HUGE fail. See, http://www.atlas-shrugged-movie.com/2011/02/earlybird-reviews-of-the-full-atlas-shrugged-movie-spectacular-solid-faithful/ we've got glowing reviews from David Kelley, Hans Schantz, Big Hollywood, REASON.com, Hustle Bear http://hustlebear.com/2011/02/28/im-so-relieved-the-atlas-shrugged-movie-was-fantastic/, and oddly enough the MOST glowing review comes from an Ayn Rand biographer, Barbara Branden. See what a difference understanding the subject matter makes? Except I think you're playing dumb just a little in order to have more negative things to say. You pretty quickly pulled the words "objectivist" and "libertarian" out of your muddled little brain, didn't you? Wonder how that happened.

Based on the one leaked scene I've already seen, I'm aching for more - see, movies are so endlessly, tediously left-oriented, you BET we're waiting for this.

For the rest of us,

Us? You're rich; you're not one of us. Nyah!

it involves a series of business meetings in luxurious retro leather-and-brass board rooms and offices, and restaurants and bedrooms that look borrowed from a hotel no doubt known as the Robber Baron Arms.

So there goes the pretense that you didn't understand it. You know exactly what you're doing. You just don't LIKE it.

During these meetings, everybody drinks. More wine is poured and sipped in this film than at a convention of oenophiliacs. There are conversations in English after which I sometimes found myself asking, "What did they just say?" The dialogue seems to have been ripped throbbing with passion from the pages of Investors’ Business Daily. Much of the excitement centers on the tensile strength of steel.

The story involves Dagny Taggart (Taylor Schilling), a young woman who controls a railroad company named Taggart Transcontinental (its motto: "Ocean to Ocean"). She is a fearless and visionary entrepreneur, who is determined to use a revolutionary new steel to repair her train tracks. Vast forces seem to conspire against her.

It’s a few years in the future. America has become a state in which mediocrity is the goal, and high-achieving individuals the enemy.

I'm sorry, how is that the future again? Oh, yeah, it isn't. It's NOW. And don't pretend you don't know what I'm talking about as you rail against greedy evil corporations and greedy evil rich people and how much more they should be forced to hand over and how much they should be shackled and regulated. Because that isn't going to work. We're onto that shit.

Laws have been passed prohibiting companies from owning other companies

Sounds like you understand it. Remember that next time you scream for "regulation! Stop the deregulation of business! More regulation!"

Dagny’s new steel, which is produced by her sometime lover, Hank Rearden (Grant Bowler), has been legislated against because it’s better than other steels.

Ah, the Handicapper General in Harrison Bergeron. Who wrote that, Vonnegut? Yes indeed How futuristic is THAT? I mean, nothing like that goes on in the real world today, right? (I could start with "progressive" taxation but that's a tad obvious...we'll look into this "futuristic" reality more later. I'm interested now.)

The Union of Railroad Engineers has decided it will not operate Dagny’s trains.

I could have sworn there were a few unions right NOW that were refusing to do their jobs unless their pay was raised and their power extended...now where did I read about that? Hmmm...

Just to show you how bad things have become, a government minister announces "a tax will be applied to the state of Colorado, in order to equalize our national economy." So you see how governments and unions are the enemy of visionary entrepreneurs.

Hmm, yes, I can see how unrealistic...oh, wait. Spread that wealth around, Ebert! I accept Mastercard and Visa.

But you’re thinking, railroads? Yes, although airplanes exist in this future, trains are where it’s at.

Um...well I guess I missed the part where freight is hauled now largely by airplane and not by trucks and trains and boats. I'll remember next time I have to sit for ten minutes and wait for the freight train to finally get past. Oddly, I just got done spending two years in shipping/receiving for a large warehouse - we didn't have many pilots coming in to get their paperwork signed; it was all truck drivers. Stupid regressive company. And what president and vice president have recently been going on and on and on about how the key to the future is high-speed trains? Hmm...I can't quite remember who said it...

When I was 6, my Aunt Martha brought me to Chicago to attend the great Railroad Fair of 1948, at which the nation’s rail companies celebrated the wonders that were on the way. They didn’t quite foresee mass air transportation. "Atlas Shrugged" seems to buy into the fair’s glowing vision of the future of trains.

So do a certain president and vice president. Their names still escape me.

Rarely, perhaps never, has television news covered the laying of new railroad track with the breathless urgency of the news channels shown in this movie.

Now here's where I stop and let you in on something; there's a reason for that. See, a thousand page book that is not just a story, not just an economics lesson but also a philosophy involves a lot of EXPOSITION. And it's very difficult to translate that exposition into another media, another format, like film. I think it's quite a clever idea to do it using the news. Especially after the collective four year orgasm we've had to watch in the media concerning a certain president whose name still escapes me.

It would help if it were like, you know, entertaining?

The movie is constructed of a few kinds of scenes: (1) People sipping their drinks in clubby surroundings and exchanging dialogue that sounds like corporate lingo; (2) railroads, and lots of ’em; (3) limousines driving through cities in ruin and arriving at ornate buildings; (4) city skylines; (5) the beauties of Colorado. There is also a love scene, which is shown not merely from the waist up but from the ears up. The man keeps his shirt on. This may be disappointing for libertarians, who I believe enjoy rumpy-pumpy as much as anyone.

See, I happen to know something concerning Ayn Rand and city skylines; that just tells me the people behind this film really GOT it. Ayn Rand did not believe in building memorials. She believed that the NY Skyline WAS our memorial. So, win.

Oh, and there is Wisconsin. Dagny and Hank ride blissfully in Taggart’s new high-speed train, and then Hank suggests they take a trip to Wisconsin, where the state’s policies caused the suppression of an engine that runs on the ozone in the air, or something (the film’s detailed explanation won’t clear this up). They decide to drive there. That’s when you’ll enjoy the beautiful landscape photography of the deserts of Wisconsin. My advice to the filmmakers: If you want to use a desert, why not just refer to Wisconsin as "New Mexico"?

Um...yeah I could see where that would really annoy...what? See, you're failing in even the rudimentary aspects of your profession here. This film has been optioned for a long long time. Many years. The last time they tried to make it their female lead (Angelina Jolie) had to drop out; there have been millions spent in other attempts. The option was going to run out in TWO MONTHS, so the filmmaker had two MONTHS in which to get the screenplay written, gather the money, select a cast and start production or he would have lost it altogether and the tens of millions he has spent. So, like the good little sheeple you are, instead of rewarding the fact that these people have pulled off a spectacular feat - an Herculean feat, one which all the other reviewers are lauding as something that was impossible, but pulled off spectacularly, you choose to...gee, you choose to punish achievement don't you? Good boy! Now roll over play dead. No, I won't scratch your tummy.

"Atlas Shrugged" closes with a title card saying, "End of Part 1." Frequently throughout the film, characters repeat the phrase, "Who is John Galt?" Well they might ask. A man in black, always shot in shadow, is apparently John Galt. If you want to get a good look at him and find out why everybody is asking, I hope you can find out in Part 2. I don’t think you can hold out for Part 3.

Well most of us already know - this story has been around for 50+ years and "going Galt" is part of a pretty familiar lexicon even to people who haven't read it. And honestly he wasn't supposed to make an appearance until part 3, but they have to give us a LITTLE something, don't they? Call it an Easter Egg. And I'll call your review a big fat juicy turd. No, I don't have to see the movie first; see, we've already established one can pronounce judgment without understanding, so there it is.

Irresponsible: if you can't see it, watch it at Moonbattery

Ding! Ding! Ding!

I'm shamelessly stealing this and expanding on it. It's from "Crooks and Liars", a hard left site, concerning Michele Bachmann.

Fire it up and watch her go! We'll sound the bell every time she floats a discredited idea. Ready?

Raising taxes for the wealthy shouldn't be "on the table," says Bachmann, because "tax rates are high enough (ding!), and history shows (ding!) that when we raise taxes, particularly on job creators (ding!) we actually bring in less revenue (ding! ding! ding!) rather than more."

Hmm; let's reverse that. Change the word "discredited" to "completely true and proven". Ding! We win!

And the history of the Great Depression shows that it took government investment to get people working and the economy growing. FDR listened to the Bachmannites of his time in the late 1930's, and everything started falling apart again. That's what history shows.

DING! DING! DING! Loser gets passes to Atlas Shrugged.

"You could actually confiscate (ding!) all the wealth that people make at $200,000 or more," says Bachmann, "and that would only yield about six or seven months of revenue to run the government." Hey, that's half the whole cost of government! She's selling the idea pretty well!

Yes, I can see why you'd like that. Um. What?

They love that word "confiscate."

Yes; you have a more accurate one? Try: steal.

"And I love the way these conservatives say they'd lay down their lives for their country, but if you ask them to pay four pennies on the dollar on six-figure income,that's dictatorship! Think of it: The highest tax bracket under Dwight D. Eisenhower was 91% percent. He must be the greatest dictator of all time!"

Sounds like it. Define "greatest". Oh, you LIKE dictatorships. Got it.

I wish it were 4 pennies on the dollar. At a low 5-figure income we get about 20% (that's 20 cents on the dollar for those of you in lala land) confiscated. That's just income tax; not the other 20% or so that goes to property taxes. No wonder I'm in the Tea Party. This has GOT to stop.

"And yet they'll give away (DING) hundreds of billions in tax revenue (ding ding ding!) like it was peanut butter in a roomful of stoned billionaires."

They love the idea that not stealing something is akin to "giving it away". You can't give what isn't yours. Next time I go into the 7/11 for a dollar-fifty burrito, I'm going to remind the proprietor that because I didn't take all the burritoes on the shelf without paying, I'm "giving" them to him. They'll like that. And when I go to the grocery store I'm gonna walk out with a loaded cart and when they stop me I'll say "Hey, I'm not giving this stuff away, pal! You want it, you pay for it!" Think they'll go for it?

"Already again," she says later, "the top 1% of income earners pay about 40% of all taxes." (That's not the right number, but whatever.) But why do the top 1% pay a large share of taxes? Because the top 400 families in America are richer than the bottom fifty percent of the entire country! So of course they pay a big chunk of income tax, even after they're coddled with tax breaks galore.

Of course.

This makes sense to them.

Nuts or not, her ideas are definitely radical.

Definitely. Define radical. Oh, it means "to the roots"? Yes, ok. Color me radical.

M - Masculinity

If it's cut off, view it HERE

Ok, some of these guys are smirking so wide their faces are cracking apart. They're just taking a piss, right? I mean, they just want to get laid, right?

Also I totally signed up for this site; they say they worship women and thus welcome women to participate. I'm going to tell them straight out in my first post - "I am a woman. I would like to be worshiped. Kthxbai."

Let ya' know how it goes.

Good News and Bad News

So Olberdouche is GONE - just like that. In a surprise announcement, he says "Ok folks, that's it, sayonara, nice knowin' ya'! His new job as The Worst Person in the World begins after a brief sabbatical. Who we're going to get to scream and yell at us to be civil after this, I don't know. But good riddance to bad rubbish. That's the good news.

The bad news is that they're moving some other douche up to his slot, leaving a slot open for Cenk effing Uygur. I don't know if you know the guy, but he's on "The Young Turks", a far-left youtube show that has often debated Lee Doren of Bureaucrash, a bona fide original grassroots Tea Partier from the early days who has made it pretty big (and more power to him, I say. His links are on my sidebar; DO check him out; he shreds bullshit with no profanity and no incivility and nothing but cold hard fact - great stuff.) Anyway, I had just been happening to look into this supposed controversy where Sarah Palin was being castigated for not screaming at Ann Coulter.

Ok from the beginning, then, for clarity. I see a post somewhere about Sarah Palin supposedly constantly calling her own son "My retarded baby" (source of this alleged info? Levi Johnston during his happy fun tour.) Which led me to a controversy wherein Ann Coulter posted a link on twitter to a video of "A retard interviewing a Republican". It turned out the "retard" was Cenk Uygur, who I happen to be familiar with. Well Cenk wrote an angry article for the Huffington Post wherein he demanded to know WHY Sarah Palin was not making a public statement condemning Coulter for using the word "retard". Now mind you, I don't care whether she does so or not - it's not Palin's job to police everything everyone says, and she's eaten enough shit sandwiches for ten grown men already, and no matter WHAT she does they're going to crucify her so if she says nothing I couldn't care less. But Cenk was convinced that if Palin didn't condemn Coulter it would forever make her a hypocrite. As if they don't already think she is. Duh.

So I'm wondering, well maybe it wasn't a very nice thing for Ann to say that - perhaps she should have chosen a different word, etc. etc. which led me to look up the interview in question. And THEN I got pissed. Because the interview she was referring to was one in which Cenk was interviewing the head of the GOProud, the Gay Republican group. Apparently CWA (Concerned Women for America) and the Family Research Council are boycotting CPAC (the biggest conservative convention) because the GOProud is going to be there for the second or third year in a row. Well, fuck them - they can boycott; I don't like the LaHayes or Dobson anyway. For YEARS Dobson's been a one-trick pony, and that trick is teh gays. I have my own personal opinions and my own personal religious beliefs, but I don't prefer to mix them up with government - government can stay out of my damned personal business so I'm sure it can stay out of gay people's business too. I don't see anything in the constitution about policing people's sex lives anyway. (Please don't say it; I know being gay is about more than sex; but it's the sex that they have a problem with and we all know it.) At any rate, being a Tea Partier, the more the merrier - so long as they want what I do - a constitutionally limited government, free markets, common law (gov't exists to protect people from direct harm to persons and property) and liberty, climb aboard. (For that matter, the first specifically black Tea Party meeting is taking place in Houston and won't that make lefty heads 'splodey? Haha!) And those Last Days books suck. They're poorly written, the theology blows, and all Bev LaHaye cares about is teh gays too. So if they don't think they want or need the help of people who have likeminded views on government or who are conservative just because they're gay, screw them.

So, back to the interview. Cenk is interviewing the head of GOProud, and the guy is very intelligent and articulate and I sure would have liked to hear more from him but Cenk just couldn't let up for a second. Which brings me back to where I got really pissed off. He starts right off attacking the guy, asking how he can POSSIBLY be a Republican. So the guy makes a distinction right away; he says, actually I'm a **conservative** Republican, emphasis on conservative. Because it's really not all about party, now, is it? We've had so many RINOs for so long that we kind of HAVE to make these distinctions now, don't we? Which this guy does. And Cenk starts challenging him asking how he can POSSIBLY align himself with conservatives when conservatives hate him. The guy TRIES to explain that since the formation of GOProud they have been welcomed to CPAC and that he feels more welcomed as a gay among conservatives than he does as a conservative around gay people. Which makes a lot of sense. Did Cenk let him even finish a thought? Hell no. Cenk continued to deride and harangue the guy, but even worse, he kept LAUGHING IN HIS FACE - repeatedly, loudly, rudely. This is a guest on his fucking SHOW - is that how you treat your guests? Really? THAT passes for journalism? Laughing in a guy's face over and over again and telling him what a moron he is? So I lost all interest in the fact that Coulter called him a retard (which is an offense to retarded people everywhere, who don't deserve to be compared to such an odious prick) and instead my ire was directed at this Uygur character who can't conduct himself professionally during a freaking interview. Now, my heart really goes out to this poor GOProud guy, because here he is trying to effect positive change in the country so we can get back to a constitutional government and maybe all get back to WORK and making some money instead of plunging into the misery index yet again, and not only do two prominent groups boycott a same-party event because of his group but the opposition laughs in his face. WTF? He didn't deserve that shit. No, the disgrace here was not Ann's use of the word "retard" but the SHAMEFUL treatment of a guest by Cenk Uygur. And now MSNBC is gonna put him on the 6 o'clock news? Oh yeah, GOOD move, assnuggets. I hope he gets a fuckton of negative publicity for his derision of this guest who did him no harm, and I hope your whole damn station goes under. Wasn't Olbermann bad enough? Didn't you learn from him? Apparently not. Well, ok, so here's the video - you know the drill; it's probably cut off so the link is HEREand if it isn't cut off, here's the embed:

Ok, Cenk - I'll say it myself. You're not a retard. You're a fucking ASSHOLE. And if Ann Coulter was the swearing type that's what she would have called you anyway. How DARE you jump on Palin - PALIN, not even COULTER - when YOU are the disgrace? How dare you?? You colossal prick. And you know what? I hope I never see you on the streets, but your guest? Can come to my house for dinner any day of the week. How do ya' like them apples, jerkoff?

RELATED READING

Dipshit on Display

Obviously no one is going to quit bitchin; that's what blogs are for, right? At least I think so. But sometimes a character so odious, so repugnant, so abhorrent just keeps on and on and on for years and gets themselves put in the national spotlight yet, that you would really just wish they would once and for all just stfu. During the Edwards campaign two bloggers were hired to connect with the internet generation - I don't think little Johnny did much vetting, as these bloggers were so over-the-moonbat, so far left of Stalin, and so blatantly offensive to most Americans that Edwards actually had to fire them in shame and pretend the whole thing never happened. One of them I knew from the good old days (12 years or so perhaps - and she's a real humdinger all right) and one was a new one to me. It's that one I'm going to proverbially shred here, as she's just begging herself for a verbal shredding and always is. And since she always refers to herself as Queen Cunt of Fuck Mountain, I'm going to use very strong words to do it. Now I could do this every day since something insane appears every day, and I could exist for years doing nothing but that and never miss a single day blogging. But I don't have that kind of stamina, so let's settle for one representative shredding and leave the new blog idea for someone who has the stomach for it. It's a blog called shakespearessister and it's a haven of radical feminist leftism and constant invective. I've nothing against invective if it's A) funny and/or B) true, but none of this is either. As I've learned to my sorrow. This is someone who relies on Ezra Klein, KOS, ThinkProgress, and PAUL effing Krugman, who she apparently believes is an economist and not a politico duping millions as he rakes in the money.

One of today's offerings:

97: The percentage of Republicans in the House who "will still be receiving insurance through the Federal Employees' Health Benefits Plan—a federal exchange which offers subsidized coverage to federal government workers, including members of Congress. According to a ThinkProgress analysis, seven, or just three percent of all the Republicans in the House have agreed to give up their insurance while they vote to repeal coverage for some 32 million Americans."

Why yes, yes they will still be receiving health coverage. Let's put this in some perspective, shall we? See, the Republicans tried to introduce a plan that if the country were going to be forced into accepting Obamacare that the congress should have to all be covered under Obamacare as well. Guess who rejected that idea? The Democrats. None of them felt Obamacare was good enough for *them* - just for all of us, no matter how much we don't want it. Some of us don't want to be fined for not buying insurance when we can't afford it. Some of us know exactly where it's leading and don't want that either. And who are these mythical 30 million people who suddenly have health care that didn't before? Last I read, there are 222 companies (all contributors to Obama's campaigns) that are exempt from the bill now, and companies are being forced to charge more for insurance, drop people altogether, raise co-pays and cover fewer things in order to cut their expenses from this monstrosity of a bill. But an imaginary 30million new poor people have coverage. Uh-huh. Hey, I have this bridge available...

Scrolling down I see the constantly-covered "blood libel" anti-Semitic charge against Palin even though prominent Rabbis like Schmuley Boteach say she used it quite properly and even Ed Koch, who admits he is terrified of Palin's policy, says she didn't say anything wrong and did a good job with her speech. Others deride it as being a purposeful stab at the Jews, when Palin is an ardent Israel supporter (uh,yeah, Obama isn't.) But here's one no one else thought to mention because it's just that ridiculous.

At one point in the interview (which is viewable here), she also says: "They can't make us sit down and shut up." "Sit down and shut up" is a common enough phrase, but her they can't make us construction is evocative of the language of social justice movements, and the Civil Rights Movement in particular. That Palin chose to use these words, in this way, on Martin Luther King Day, is no coincidence.

No accident. Yes, she said "they can't make us" because she hates black people. You know why no one else reported this? Because it doesn't make any sense. But guess what? You CAN'T make us sit down and shut up. You CAN'T tell us we can "come along for the ride but they have to sit in back" as Obama said about Republicans. Because we won't do it. We may scare you, but you don't scare us.

You really should thank me because scrolling through this shit is harder than it looks. *Everything* is horrible and shred-worthy. And those words are no accident! They come on the anniversary of the Fargo woodchipper incident which as we all know was an anti-feminist crime.

Ah, she has a whole category called "Both Sides are Not Just As Bad." Why yes, yes they are. See also Fuller, the slew of new death threats to the Palins, and just...well yes, yes it's demonstrably true that both sides ARE just as bad. I've provided 3 links of the proof of that, one of which is a literal roundup of dozens of links proving exactly that. Now don't get me wrong - I don't see why *anyone* should "tone it down" - neither "side" (they seem to forget there are more than two sides here - hell, the CWA is boycotting CPAC because GOProud is welcome there; there are libertarians and there are all sort of other legitimate political foundations aside from the two parties, but hey, I'll stay with the phony "two-sided" meme if that floats your boat.)

As I've written before, anti-choice activists, in conjunction with the GOP, have successfully chipped away at abortion rights on the federal and state levels for two decades, hollowing the right guaranteed by Roe via "partial-birth abortion bans" and "parental consent laws" and state legislatures that refuse to fund clinics offering abortions and local municipalities creating barriers with zoning laws.

Bitch, please. D&X abortion is an atrocity almost anyone (well, anyone with a soul) can recognize, unless the baby is in a condition that is LITERALLY incompatible with life such as anencephaly. That isn't usually why it's done. And you know it. You know the AMA has said that procedure is never necessary to save the life of the mother, either. And yes, Dr. Tiller was a monster; I read up on his background and his statements. No, no one should have shot him, but that doesn't change what he was. And it isn't why so many clinics closed *years* before that. They operate for profit; if profits fall off, they close. Abortion is at an all-time low; apparently we don't need as many clinics because maybe,just MAYBE, people are using birth control. PARENTAL CONSENT LAWS do not take away anyone's rights; they RESTORE the right of the parents to have *knowledge* of serious medical procedures taking place on their CHILDREN - if the nurse can't give her an aspirin without your consent, they sure as shit can't operate on her. Get real. That doesn't restrict her right to have one; the parents have to be notified but that doesn't mean they can stop it. And ME refusing to PAY YOU for your abortion isn't taking away your right to have one. You find the fucking money; I don't owe you an abortion. Next time use a rubber; they're everywhere, you know.

The people who use violent rhetoric, and violence, bank on that response. They provoke until Something Bad Happens, and they count on their opponents' decency, which they exploit for maximum gain.

As Coulter said, if you want to know what the left is up to, just look at what they're accusing conservatives of. Believe me, no one over here is counting on YOU people to be anything approaching "decent". You never have been, why start now?

You know what every last Democrat in Congress needs to start shouting in front of every camera and into every microphone they can find...? That Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is only alive today because she had access to some of the best healthcare on the planet, which is paid for by the taxpayers of this nation, who deserve the same as she's got.

Oh good god. Where do you start with THAT? First of all, it was paid for by tax dollars because she works for the fucking government and all her salary and benefits come from the taxpayers. I certainly don't begrudge her health coverage provided by her job. Which so many people are now LOSING thanks to Obamacare. And WHY did she get the best healthcare in the world? Because she got it in the United States, which has maintained a semblance of a free market in the field and thus is constantly *innovating* and making advances in the field. Also because in this country it is ILLEGAL to turn away anyone who needs emergency care - such as someone who was just SHOT IN THE HEAD. Anyone would get the care available in their area and the bill comes later - if you are indigent it usually gets written off to charity care. They can't attach your wages for it or put you in jail for not paying it or take your house away for it - all they can do is try to collect. Ok those were the laws last time I needed medical care; have they changed? Did Obamacare fuck me over now too?

Then there's a rant on how evil Gwyneth Paltrow is for dispensing advice to other mothers because her privilege is so obvious. Now if only she'd done it the way Cracked did it it would have been funny. She doesn't "get" funny. Her idea of funny is this one rape joke (which only rape survivors get to make) that she is so proud of she constantly parades it around the place as one of the only acceptable rape jokes in existence. If I could make jokes I would totally make rape jokes since I'm allowed to since I had one too! (Ok, a couple but who's counting?) Please don't tell me you're sorry; I'm fine. Plenty of worse things have happened to me.

After seeing Palin's response to the witch-hunt and blood libel she is being subjected to - ON THAT VERY BLOG I MIGHT ADD - this blogger is "literally shaking with rage" so badly that she's "actually incoherent" right now. When WERE you coherent?

Embedded within Gergen's admonishment is the damnable lie that pointing out this act of violence does not exist in a void is the same thing as placing blame for the massacre.

You and your whole following certainly DID blame Palin and Beck et. al. and so did millions of other people. KOS insists "Mission accomplished, Sarah Palin" and one blog owner insists that there has to be some way Palin can be legally tried for this murder spree. Sound a little like blame? Yeah, I thought so too.

There's a complaint that Joe Biden made the same joke to every little girl or young woman he greeted during the congressional swearing in - "No dating until you're 30!" He just kept saying it and saying it. Poor Joe; he can only get UNINTENTIONAL laughs; when he tries he totally fails. But in this case he's being the "gatekeeper of women's sexuality." Wow. I didn't know my vagina had a gatekeeper all its own. Thanks Joe!

Ok, here's the one I wanted. I gave up scrolling and did a search. There's a new movie with Adam Sandler and Jennifer Aniston (sounds...awful) where he enlists the help of his friend (Aniston) to help him get the girl of his dreams. Obviously they will fall in love during the process and end up together; formula comedy at its "finest", right? Hokey bullshit no one will bother with. But wait! They use anti-feminist sexual assault imagery - it's a rape movie! WHO KNEW?

Here, we see Jennifer Aniston and Adam Sandler sitting on the beach fist-bumping each other, sealing the deal in which she'll help him "land the woman of his dreams." In the background, her bikini-clad back turned to the camera, is, presumably, said dream woman.

But take a closer look at the way their fists are positioned as they bump. X notes via email: "They appear to be about to pull apart the model's legs, like a turkey wishbone. This might take some kind of prize as the subtlest version of violence against women in movie posters that I've ever seen, but it still definitely suggests a violent act."

I guess it does if you're insane. In fact it's so subtle no one else will ever see it.

This is not a coincidence. The entire premise of the movie is that Sandler has enlisted Aniston's help to get laid, and here is the visual representation of the two of them working together to pry apart a woman's legs.

Not an accident! Something someone in their right minds wouldn't even think of is on purpose?? Does that even make sense? And who said she's trying to help him get laid? She's trying to help him "get the girl." A girl he thinks he loves. If he wanted to rape her he wouldn't need Aniston's help, now, would he? So now the poor slob who made the stupid movie poster is accused of rape apologia. They see violence in *everything* and these are the people we're supposed to now censor our speech for because it might be "violent"? Would YOU surrender your speech to people who would police it to such a ludicrous, insane extent? I sure as hell won't.

Ghastly.

Well I would have gone with "absurd" but that's just me I guess. Let me know when they make you language czar so we can all use idiotic terms like "hir" (instead of his/her) and "zie" (instead of he/she) and cic-gender (not transgender) like you do. Because we all want to talk like assholes.

But I've gotten about a dozen violent threats this week alone—more violent threats than donations. What am I supposed to do? What are all the women like me supposed to do? The women who can't afford the best private security money can buy...?

Given your definition of "violent talk" I'm surprised it's not thousands. But again given your definition it's probably less than a dozen. You know what's pretty dumb if you ask me? Putting your real name and information on your inflammatory blog. First thing they ever told us when the net was new was not to give people your dox. First time someone said "a/s/l" in chat I got freaked. I was like uh-uh. You give someone that shit you better be sure you can trust them. Next thing you know someone's putting surveyor's symbols on your face and we all know what happens next! ??? Profit!

Ok enough crazy for one day; I enjoy ripping up stupidity, most particularly lefty stupidity (conservative stupidity AND smartidity already gets pummeled enough; I don't need to aid it.) Libertarian stupidity is just starting to get its share because it's just now really coming into its own and because it encompasses such a broad group of people (religious, non-religious, anti-religious, different ethnicities, different cultures and disagreements on various issues) so it's going to be a little harder to get that started. Libertarians don't have a Limbaugh or a Coulter or...well maybe we do. We do have Penn Jillette and Drew Carey but they're pretty hard to cut up. Since they're both AWESOME. So we'll see where that all ends up going.

Neuro-Atypical Person Uses Nondescript Weapons-Type Object to Hug People

See, we all have to censor our speech now, again, in an effort to be PC.

This practice fell out of favor during Clinton as people realized, "Fuck you, I'll say what I want!" The left spared no speech in their attempts to get Bush killed with extreme prejudice. But they don't own guns, so screw them.

We're not supposed to say this guy was crazy. Crazy ain't PC. We're no longer supposed to mention guns. We're no longer supposed to use "violent rhetoric." It doesn't matter that this guy had nothing to do with the Tea Party or Sarah Palin and wasn't "political" in any recognizable sense. Because violent event = TEA PARTY! Our peaceful rallies are nullified by a lone gunman with no political agenda except that the government is controlling grammar and he has lucid dreams. Don't retreat - reload! which obviously meant "VOTE THEM OUT!" now means "KILL THEM" even though the guy was clearly unaware of this statement himself. It's contributing to a climate of hate. Representative Bob Brady is writing a bill to censor political speech, and when asked about people who might be against such legislation, he sincerely asks "Why would you be against it?" Apparently he missed the first amendment part of the reading of the constitution on the house floor the other day. The Constitution is hate speech anyway. (After all it was written by gun-owning insurgents who shot people in the quest for liberty, making them no different than Loughner.)

THE SHERIFF (and why weren't there police at this event???) blames conservatives immediately despite this NOT BEING HIS JOB AT ALL, and we find out HE KNEW LOUGHNER INTIMATELY and KNEW the guy was violent and dangerous...did nothing. He painted blame in order to excuse himself for any ACTUAL blame.

MarKOS of The Daily KOS is fomenting hatred by blaming the Tea Party for thisand especially Sarah Palin's "Target Map" despite using the exact same imagery himself and he decries "Target Lists" as violent despite using target lists extensively on his own site. Markos is a newfag asshole who never gives an inch and will blame the right for everything from global warming (er. climate change) to the cream in his coffee containing simplesse. As these people decry violent rhetoric and the climate of hate, they call us all murderers without a qualm. Yes, they're that stupid.

4-chan's Anonymous happily jumped on the bandwagon, not to make a political statement but to start trolling Palin's Facebook (and Giffords' if she has one), making posts about killing Palin, asking for pix of Giffords' bloody head, pretending to be Bristol Palin, and you know - just general mischief. They don't resemble V except insofar as they wear the masks in person. Markos is silent on the matter.

Through all this Penn Jillette made the most coherent and meaningful Twat I think I've ever seen - [b]"Fuck Civility. Hyperbole, passion, and metaphor are some of the most beautiful parts of rhetoric. Marketplace of ideas cannot be toned down for the insane."[/b] YOU GO PENN!

But just in case newspeak takes the day, we have (with the help of Iowahawk) rewritten some violent imagery in popular references. Johnny Cash has been rewritten to say "I hugged a man in Reno/just to watch him smile..." and movie titles "12 Slightly Disgruntled Men and/or Womyn" and art to "The Non-Sexual Aiding of the Sabine Womyn". Gotta be careful or these neuro-atypicals will non-violently take over by hugging people in the face.

On a happy note, Loughner YOU FAIL! YOUR WOMAN LIVES! OUTLANDER!

God bless Giffords for living. And keep fighting the good fight. I can't figure out how to make that statement non-violent, so FIGHT! (Passively resist? Ok, PASSIVELY RESIST, GIFFORDS!) As Giffords passively resists for her life, let's all just give up our free speech and condemn Sarah Palin as a murderer. Nothing nasty about that now, is there? And now your moment of Zen - the non-violent left and their non-violent rhetoric (which they claim we will not find no matter how hard we look) - oh gee, they better tone it down!

(On a serious note, none of these people are responsible for this atrocity - left or right. Loughner's responsible. In his lucid dreams. But you wanna play that game fucknuggets? THEN PLAY.)

http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621 From the DC Tea Party Rally I went to - drove four hours and struck gold - gay, straight, black, white, atheist, Christian - WE ARE ONE! AMERICANS!

Lefty Lunacy Fun

So before we celebrate the New Year with something uplifting let's shred some leftism - it took me exactly 7 seconds to type in the address of a popular leftist blog and lo & behold, post #1 was just ripe for the wood chipper, so let's do it. I'm not linking it (no linky love from me! plus I don't want any infestations) but I'll save the link for posterity (if you really want it ask me in private.) The question posed to the posters was "What person/scenes/quotes would you like to see on your country's currency?" Now that's not something you really want the left's opinion on...until you start thinking about it. Why the hell not? At the moment I can still BUY some toilet paper with it but soon I'll be wiping my ass WITH the stuff anyway, since the fed's just printing it out at will, right? So my original horror at the answers quickly gave way to laughter, as I'm sure will yours. Now it's rather new so I'm sure fun new stuff will be added but for now here are some choice tidbits:

First response

Hillary Clinton

And yeah, I laughed right there.

Women poets: "Wild Geese" by Mary Oliver: You do not have to be good. You do not have to walk on your knees For a hundred miles through the desert, repenting. You only have to let the soft animal of your body love what it loves.

Ok honestly I'm not a poetry fan but it seems like it sucks to me. Who knows. Bit odd to be putting on a ten-spot, but hey, who am I to complain?

USA -- how about some lines from "This Land is Your Land." And not the first verse. The other verses, the ones that never get sung cause they're all socialist and shit. These verses -- As I was walkin' - I saw a sign there And that sign said - no tresspassin' But on the other side .... it didn't say nothin! Now that side was made for you and me! In the squares of the city - In the shadow of the steeple Near the relief office - I see my people And some are grumblin' and some are wonderin' If this land's still made for you and me.

Where they gonna fit all that? On the back?

Ellen Page (yes, the little girl from Juno who played a pregnant teenager and also from Hard Candy who played a revenge-seeking little girl against an alleged pedophile) and her quote: "I am a feminist and I am totally pro-choice, but what's funny is when you say that people assume that you are pro-abortion. I don't love abortion but I want women to be able to choose and I don't want white dudes in an office being able to make laws on things like this. I mean what are we going to do – go back to clothes hangers?"

Because that's like, totally what money should, like, say and stuff. Hehe.

Then we get, oh, Georgia O'Keefe (maybe one of her vagina paintings on the back, eh?) and Martin Luther King (no word on whether anything possibly plagiarized should be included) then my favorite so far

Oh, and the US should replace "In God We Trust" with "Property is Theft".

THEN WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH THAT MONEY?!? HAND IT OVER! LOL

I would kind of like to see a ban on white dudes on money for a hundred years or so.

Ah, yes, the white dudes. Gotta ban them. That one also suggests that money be made different sizes for the visually impaired - I would have gone with Braille, but what do I know?

I'd love to see currency with the slogan "From each according to ability; to each according to need."

Well why not? We're all socialists now, right Newsweek? Well, before you sold your magazine for $1 that is.

I'd love to see US currency have actual quotes by Thomas Paine. I wonder sometimes if alot of "patriots" have any idea at all what it was the revolution was fought for. I think they might shit their collective pants.

Well...considering what your friends are suggesting, I kinda doubt that we'd be the ones shocked, but ok...

Billie Holliday, Rosa Parks, Maya Angelou, Emily Dickinson, Toni Morrison, Janis Joplin, Katharine Hepburn, Sylvia Plath, Betty Friedan, bell hooks, Abigail Adams, Kate Chopin, Flannery O'Connor, Margaret Sanger, Mae Jemison, Margaret Mead

Does Rosa Parks come with a NAACP sticker on the back? Does Margaret Sanger get a token quote about eugenics? Or Margaret Mead about the hoax that was perpetrated on her by the Samoan girls? So many possibilities.

Well, on a fun note, the Ronald Reagan Commemorative Postage Stamp (his second) just went on sale, and the nice thing is they said they're replacing the "44 cents" with "Forever" so if you stock up now you can use them when the rates go up! I was gonna put a pic but my keyboard is sticking; it's on google. Enjoy!

Cry, Baby, Cry! KOS Nooz.

BONUS AT THE END FOR MY READERS!!

Ok this is gonna be a long one, but I assure you it's worth it. Liz at rightnation.us braved the cesspool that is KOS to bring it to us and I'ma rip it to shreds one delicious bite at a time.

As the last election cycle demonstrated, reckless government has awoken the sleeping giant at last (boy was he sleeping hard) and while it must NEVER be pleasant to be a leftist, it's about to get one hell of a lot harder for a long time to come. Too many years we had to be "above" their sleazy level, be the better person, compassionate conservatism blahdeblahdeblah. The bashing was ceaseless, constant, it became like white noise and Bush for all his faults didn't crumple under it and have a mental breakdown. Sure some of us have been angry for a long time, but now millions upon millions more are angry and what's more they're done playing that game. The one some of us knew they could never win anyway. Ok, on to the KOS post that so inspired me - because the taste of their tears is sweet like candy, like sugar, like milk and honey. KOS - you EARNED this and I'mma give it to you.

First, the link - Title: Unsubscribed from Organizing For America - Moved to Tears - we'll see if Markos scrubs it like he does so many other things. I've got it anyway. Title "Unsubscribed from Organizing for America - Moved to Tears. By a man.

I watched some of President Obama's comments in his press conference today, one day after I sent him a letter in response to an Organizing for America email, expressing my disappointment in some of his policies and his proposal to extend all of the Bush tax cuts.

I'm sure he'd already received it and it was his number one priority to address your letter. He didn't have anything better to do that day anyway. Not even a golf game in sight. Now what are we talking about - HIS proposal to extend the tax cuts? HIS proposal? No, honey, let me explain this to you - our guys were not going to play ball on that one, no way no how. And apparently with Obama you don't even have to be in your seat yet; you just have to not blink. They didn't blink. See, it was all or nothing on that one - let the taxes increase for *everyone* - including you leftist bloggers and the people barely scraping by paycheck to paycheck (not that you'd know about THAT; that involves WORK) - or leave the tax rates as they are across the board. He knew how you'd scream if your paychecks (those of you who get them) got smaller and frankly, he also knew it would be wrong to do that to them. He doesn't get why it's wrong to do it to the richer people, but he got that it would be wrong to do to the poorer among us. You didn't get that memo or didn't understand it. Moving on then, since you're a wordy fucker.

Today I saw a president openly mocking and disparaging the principled activists of his party. He sounded like he didn't want my support or the support of any progressives -- that he is done with us and plans to make no attempt to woo us by embracing any of our principles and policy preferences as he has done so frequently and self-abasedly with conservative Republicans.

First of all...WOO you? What are you, 14? An idiot? It is not the president's job to "woo" you - that's called campaigning. See, he's got the job now and he has to, like, DO it. I know, foreign concept. He doesn't have time to KEEP stroking your schlong for you anymore every second of every freaking day - not if he wants to get anything at all done; you people are ENDLESSLY greedy for stroking and you expect it from the guy as your birthright; well grow up.

Second of all, I watched the thing, and what I saw was a man who was TRYING to explain this all to you in very simple terms why it had to happen this way. They weren't lobbing softballs or writing puff pieces this time; this was his time to "get even" with the GOP and you were thirsty for conservative blood, and you thought he could get it for you. He couldn't. And you were galled. Surprisingly enough, not at them for being so insistent, but at HIM this time. I don't think he saw that one a'comin'. Because you built this man up to be a God...well he's a God who BLEEDS! (5 pts for reference.) The FIRST TIME he meets up with the new folk, he strikes a pretty even compromise (you know, that thing you're always telling conservatives to do?) and you call that "frequently and self-abasedly with Republicans"??? Are you kidding me? What in the hell are you going to do for two years when he's forced to make bigger compromises and take bigger losses? Do your heads go 'splodey or what? Because even Olbermann went on an unbelievable rant already; spewing the same shit he always does, only this time at his own guy instead of teh ebil Bush. My God, when it comes time to defund Obamacare and actually make cuts, what happens to you? I can't wait to find out.

But you know, if you had any sense at all, you would have actually listened to his explanation. He even did it your way - he blamed the Republicans for it (you say blame, I say credit - potayto potahto) - and you still wouldn't listen? Why? He was telling the truth (loosely defined) and in all likelihood he did his best (he did come out with a few things of his own, you know) but his best isn't going to be everything you want it to be - nobody's best could be, and this time he's up against real competition for the first time. This time he didn't have an entire congress and senate full of supporters to ram it through without reading it first. (Well...technically he DID, but whatever. I'm not really sure why he had to do this.) And you take his explanations as mockery of you? Get over yourself. He read your fucking letter and he did the best he could about it!

He sounded like he would not even try to "earn back my support and the support of the millions of progressive Democrats, especially young people like myself who invested so much hope in your candidacy two years ago," as I asked him to do in my letter.

Like I said, he read it first thing, and he really tried, my darling. Earning your support is his #1 priority. Along with his 8 thousand other number one priorities.

Then, this evening, I got another email from OFA, asking me to watch a video of President Obama promoting the Republican tax cuts for the rich and to leave a comment as feedback to the Obama campaign. I watched the video and left the following comment:

Whoah whoah - back up there, buddy boy. There were no tax cuts involved here - not for the wealthy. What was on the table was maintaining current tax RATES, not making cuts. Please do get your facts straight on this because it's rather important. Tax cuts come later. Coming soon to a district near you!

* Eric Stetson's diary :: :: * I think President Obama is making a big mistake by moving so far to the right and essentially doing exactly what Republicans want, a tax policy that will increase the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars and necessitate deep spending cuts that will be devastating to the economy.

Ok, how can I explain this one. First of all, the guy couldn't be more leftist if he were Stalin. He REALLY IS on your side. He studied and believes in Marx. He was raised into Islamicism. He finds it beautiful. He makes grandiose speeches to Middle Eastern Islamic leaders about how wonderful they are and bows to them when he can. This "move so far to the right" was an ever-so-slight swerve to avoid a massive pothole - if you think this is moving to the right, you are in for a VERY rude awakening. He hasn't even thought of coming close to the middle yet, and he's going to have to (or he'll have to use his own unemployment plan).

Second of all snookums, the Republicans did NOT get exactly what they want - not by a long shot. They made what is called a compromise wherein each side gives up something and try to come out fairly even. It was too soon for cuts, and continuing unemployment was not a bad one to compromise on for the Rs. With all due respect to Mark Levin, my favorite, this was not at all a bad deal for either side. Certainly not this early in the game.

Lastly, maintaining tax rates does not devastate the economy - tax hikes do. To stimulate the economy you make tax CUTS. You see, the government doesn't CREATE wealth and as Obama found to his chagrin, there are no such things as "shovel-ready jobs" like he thought there were. You make a couple trillion dollars fiat money and that doesn't put everyone to work building highways, unfortunately. All it does is create enormous debt. If you want the economy to grow, government has to GET OUT OF THE WAY of business so it can DO business and put people to work earning sweet sweet dough. That's how the real world works.

I was an enthusiastic supporter and volunteer in Mr. Obama's 2008 campaign, but I am very disappointed with his presidency so far. I was disappointed that he did not fight for a public option in the health care reform bill. I was disappointed that he did not close the Guantanamo Bay prison. I was disappointed that he did not allow investigations of high ranking Bush administration officials who authorized the use of torture. I was disappointed that he escalated the war in Afghanistan.

Ok you mixed them in together but let me pick 'em apart for you. He DID fight for a public option and wasn't able to get it if he wanted his health care plan to go through at all. I don't know why since he had both houses firmly stacked, but that's just how it went. They had to pick something out of that monstrosity, and that was the bit that got taken out of that MASSIVE chunk of bill. He got the rest of it through, or did you miss that part?

Now, Guantanamo Bay - you see, I know he WANTED to do that and YOU wanted him to do that but that was never going to happen. Because once he got there, you see, he found out that you really CAN'T do that. You really CAN'T, as we've tried to explain to you for YEARS now, simply let terrorist enemy combatants loose in the world, and the civil court is certainly not equipped to deal with them. So there has been a stalemate, or another sort of compromise - you don't set them loose or bring them through civil court, and we won't put them in front of a tribunal as SHOULD be done. See how that works? They get to live - in comfort - but they don't get OUT. Until we can get them properly before tribunals, that's how it's going to have to be, and Obama had to face this hard REALITY pretty quickly. You haven't caught on yet is all.

He hasn't brought the troops home and he's escalating efforts in the worst possible area (Afghanistan isn't worth it and doesn't need it) because the man has no foreign policy or military experience, which we told you in the first place. You knew that's what Biden was there for, but Biden is busy eating burritos or something, faking an Indian accent to get into the 7/11. So Joe's a little busy to help with foreign policy decisions. Actually, the man was such an embarrassment they had to shut him up permanently, but we won't talk about that. Many lulz have been denied us that should have been ours from Biden, so I will hold that against you.

At any rate, while he WANTS to simply bring the troops home and declare the Iraq efforts over and done, he was faced with another harsh reality which we have tried ENDLESSLY to explain to you - you SIMPLY. CAN. NOT. DO. THAT. It doesn't work that way. I'll leave it to our friends with military experience to explain to you why this is so. But trust me, it is.

As to "investigating" Bush's policies and trying to prosecute a defunct administration, that was never going to happen. I don't even believe he made any promises to that effect, either. You see, that takes years for one thing. For another thing, he actually has access to the information now, and he knows your rhetoric was mostly all bullshit and there's nothing to prosecute. Caterpillars do not equal torture no matter how you spin it. And while he was wasting his time dicking around trying to find something and prosecute the previous administration, he wouldn't have had a single moment to ram through all the pork you demanded. Which he DID. So you ought to be really, really glad he didn't waste his time on that bullshit.

Extending the Republican tax cuts for the rich is the last straw for me. I can no longer call myself a supporter of President Obama. I hope he will step aside at the end of his term and let other Democrats who actually believe in Democratic principles and policies run for president in 2012.

Slight correction - maintaining current tax rates for everyone. There, fixed it for you. Step aside for another Dem? Who in the hell else do you think is going to be able to A) win and B) get what you want done? You fool! But OK; I have no problem with him stepping aside. Bring it on; whoever you want.

And then I clicked the link to unsubscribe from the Organizing for America email list. I didn't do it lightly. I have thought of doing it before, but never actually did it.

You're gonna...un...un...unsubscribe??? Shit just got real.

Maybe it was my memory of the weekends I spent walking neighborhoods, knocking on doors, passing out literature and attempting to persuade people to vote for this man in the crucial swing state of Virginia.

Yeah I remember that to. He told you to "get in their faces", remember that? He told you to go to the barbershops and beauty shops and your neighbors and get in their faces and tell them who to vote for. And you did it. Seems a little funny now, doesn't it? Yeah, we thought so too.

I was always hoping that at some point, President Obama would surprise me by restoring the hope I had invested in him in his campaign.

Problem with that, dollface, is that "Hope and Change" were a campaign slogan. There was absolutely no meaning behind it. You can't just say "Hope! Change!" without defining your terms. See, we were real specific with our candidates about what they need to do when they're there, or at least try to do. You voted for an empty suit with an empty slogan with no definition. But I'm sorry your poor little hope was just dashed against the rocks like seafoam. Oh, wait. No, I'm not. You're a filthy hatemongering KOStard and I hate you back.

There is such a deliberate finality about taking the action of unsubscribing from the mailing list of an organization that one used to support strongly and in which one made a significant investment. Finally I did it.

ZOMG YOU DID? Cue up the violins, I think he's gonna solo! Then what happened, Eric?

I felt a sick feeling in my stomach and found tears welling up in my eyes. I don't cry easily. I certainly didn't expect that the simple act of unsubscribing from a political mailing list would have such an effect on me, but somehow it did.

Yeah, I think that's the definition of "crying easy." But hey, that's just me. I was sorely disappointed when Fred Thompson dropped out because no one else was suitable, but hey, life goes on. I didn't, like, cry over it.

I think my tears came because of a realization that suddenly hit me full force like a punch in the gut: that Barack Obama will go down in history as a tragic figure, a classic, archetypal example of a man who had so much potential to be a great, transformational leader at a time when the society in which he lived desperately needed such a leader and actually elected him to lead our country in a new direction.

Oh, please. You guys are constantly writing and rewriting and rewriting history before it even happens. You were never taught so you don't have the vaguest concept of history. If the grownups hadn't come in to save him midterm he COULD have gone down as another Carter - an utter failure who led us into some of the deepest misery seen since the Great Depression. Ever hear of the Misery Index? Gas lines? Look into it sometime. But now he won't even get that chance. If he's lucky he'll go down like another Clinton - saved two years in by the efforts of others that he took credit for and got rewarded with a second term for. That's gonna take a hell of a lot of luck, though. Because, see, you didn't count on us. You thought we'd NEVER strike back in significant numbers. You didn't know you'd awoken a sleeping giant with your constant streams of daily invective and utter, mouth-foaming hatred. But you did. The giant am awake now, and he's PISSED. We're done playing pussyfoot with you people. Oh you had it so easy with mild-mannered Bush...you just don't know what's coming your way this time.

And who took the rare opportunity given to him and threw it away, becoming just another typical politician making backroom deals for less than half a loaf -- mere crumbs, in fact, and crumbs spiked with poison -- becoming an accessory to the continued decline of American civilization, shattering the hopes of millions. When he could have been so much more.

First of all, no he couldn't have. He hadn't the vaguest notion of what being president would mean and he had no experience whatsoever. The guy was in way over his head from day one. Second of all, spare me the damned melodrama - the guy did one HELL of a lot more damage than "crumbs" (poisoned ones! Oh noes!) in the last two years. He and Pelosi rammed through MASSIVE expansions of government and extreme levels of unprecedented debt. Trillions of dollars in fiat money. (By the way, something like 100 billion of that was misprinted, or mixed with properly printed and misprinted...so that money's tied up - it would take them 30 years to sort it by hand, but the machines they figure on something like two years. So some of that sweet sweet stimulus money won't be going to Obama's big business friends for a while.) Obamacare. HUGE expansion in governmental power and damage to the insured. The guy even tried to explain THIS to you - he tried to explain that all the massive government entitlements we have today - Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, etc. etc. etc. started out one hell of a lot smaller than they are now - it takes time for them to grow you know; but once you start them, unless you defund them immediately they never go away; they just grow. He TRIED to tell you this and you just kept pounding and pounding your drum and wouldn't listen. Remember when he said the Tea Partiers should be thanking him? YOU should be thanking him. He's done every fucking thing you wanted except the things that there is no way to do (like closing club Gitmo and releasing the rats from their tropical cages) and do you thank him? No, you ungrateful sacks of shit.

Instead what you do is scream and cry and throw a big fat tantrum like children who have to go to bed early or can't get that piece of candy RIGHT NOW. And you know why? Because ALL YOU KNOW HOW TO DO IS HATE AND SCREAM AND TEAR THINGS APART, and it's too old to keep doing Bush now, so you stoked up your hate machine again (because life's no fun without it) and threw Obama into it instead this time. Because this time there was no one else to throw in. The guy is one unlikeable, angry, Marxist, lying sonofabitch, but you know what? He didn't deserve that. Not from YOU. He really HAS done his best by YOU.

But you know what, my friend? That empty feeling in your gut? Those bitter tears that taste like sugar to me? Get used to them. Because we're angry now. And we're not playing your reindeer games anymore. For reindeer, see Sarah Palin's last television show. That's what reindeer get, you Socialist, anti-Semitic, race-baiting scumbags. They get EATEN. What's that? I hear the sound of a shotgun being cocked...oh cry, baby, cry...cry...cry. Damn, that's some tasty caribou. It's gonna take years to clean up your mess and wipe your shitty diapers up but the grownups are going to do it. Just cry it out; it's good for the lungs.

Now, for my readers I have an AWESOME bonus, as promised - with major hat tips to my good friend clambake - GET THIS MAN OVER HERE STAT!!! REALITY CHECK! I was *cheering* as much as the crowd after this one; it's better than your morning coffee, I assure you. And if you can't see it here, go HERE - MUST SEE

Go BACK To Indonesia, Fuckhead

"In Indonesia, our stilted professor was replaced with a man at ease who charmed his audience by speaking the local language. Tunku Varadarajan only wishes this could have been Obama’s first major speech to the Muslim world—and that his visit weren’t so short.

It’s a colossal shame that presidential life has no magic rewind button, for if it did—and we could whirr ourselves back to June 2009—we’d have had Barack Hussein Obama skip Pharaonic old Cairo, city of the ghastly Hosni Mubarak and a tightly coiled hatred of the West, and deliver his first major speech to a Muslim nation in Indonesia.."

Oh, if only he could find a FRIENDLY audience, he would SO RULE.

"Why, oh why, did he not come here in June ’09, forgoing the sterility of the Arab world for the tolerant, syncretic Islam of Indonesia? Whoever advised him then should be shot, or fed to crocodiles"

Tolerance.

"for it is in places like Indonesia, where Islam is worn lightly, where Islam is not a bludgeon deployed against the rest of the world, that Obama’s repeated references to Islam as a “great world religion” seem plausible."

So we're admitting it ISN'T plausible other places then?

"Indonesia, as the president also recognized, is a democracy—a democracy of Muslims, as opposed to an Islamic democracy. As such, it is not a place where he will have felt at all awkward extolling the virtues of “open markets, a free press, a justice system, an open society, and active citizens,” as he did Tuesday night. Can you imagine him calling out such things so freely in Egypt, or in any other Muslim country bar Turkey, where it is still possible—just—to identify these features?"

Would be nice if he could identify them HERE, would't it? And are we acknowledging that these thing are NOT identifiable in other Arab-Muslim countries?

"sweetly personal (Obama lived in Jakarta when he was a boy)"

But he wasn't born there!!! He's Hawaiian!

"Why oh why was his visit so short, but his visit there appears to have been as heartwarming to the locals as it was maddeningly fleeting. Judging by the gusher of words in the local Bahasa language at the end of his speech, Obama has deep personal rapport—still—with Indonesia. One wishes that he had stayed longer, and showcased Indonesia to greater effect, introducing the country and its tolerant Muslim ways to America at greater length. Islam is not of the Arab world alone. In truth, our best Muslim allies in the long run will come from places like Indonesia. Which is why Obama’s salutations to Islam—which had grated so harshly in suffocating, Sunni Cairo— sounded so congenial in Indonesia, a country whose president, Sushilo Bambang Yudhoyono, is a Muslim who doesn’t even have a Muslim name."

So I guess we'll call him Bambang from now on. Bambang...that's a cooler name than Obama, isn't it? You can almost hear the Pshew, Pshew! sounds.

"Go back to Indonesia soon, President Obama. The people there get you, and like you. What’s more, they get us, and like us. (What’s “win-win” in Bahasa?)"

Yes, and STAY there. After all, us bitter clingers don't "get" you - we just didn't GET your awesomeness, which is why the GOP swept the house, the governorships, and the state legislatures - we just didn't GET your awesomeness; we're too stupid. Go rule where you're wanted!

Well, that piece was nauseating.

Don't Let Your Reps Forget! Olive Branch? My...foot.

Ripping some prior quotes and a little commentary by Malkin, let's talk about Mr. "I Won" Obama's new priority of reaching out to the newcomers.

“I probably should have used the word ‘opponents’ instead of ‘enemies’ to describe political adversaries,” Obama admitted Monday. Yeah, PROBABLY.

“We don’t mind the Republicans joining us,” Obama taunted a few weeks ago. “They can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in back.” The unifier.

“They’re counting on young people staying home and union members staying home and black folks staying home,” the fear-mongering agent of hope and change jeered on the campaign trail last month.

“You would think they’d be saying thank you,” he sneered last April, when millions turned out for the nationwide Tax Day tea party protests. THANK YOU, sir, for waking up the sleeping giant.

“I want them just to get out of the way” and “don’t do a lot of talking,” he scoffed in response to prescient critics of the federal trillion-dollar stimulus boondoggle. Well we just talked at the ballot box. It just isn't what you wanted to hear.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer called vocal citizens who protested the federal health care takeover bill during the town hall revolts of 2009 “un-American,” too. Remember? “These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views — but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American,” Pelosi and Hoyer blasted in an op-ed piece for USA Today last summer. “Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.” Funny, I seem to remember SEIU thugs trying to drown out the Town Hall protestors.

Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida, whom the president hailed as an “outstanding” member of Congress, accused Republicans of wanting elderly people to “die quickly” and of presiding over a “holocaust in America.” But "death panels" was hate speech, right?

In California, entrenched incumbent jerk Pete Stark derided immigration enforcement activists at a town hall by asking: “Who are you going to kill today?” To an elderly constituent who opposed the health care bill, Stark retorted: “I wouldn’t dignify you by peeing on your leg. It wouldn’t be worth wasting the urine.” Holy hell. Could you imagine if Palin dared say something like that to a Democrat??

Remind your representatives as many times as you can that they were elected to be the party of HELL NO. They must endure the jeers of "obstructionists" (I Won, remember?) and suck it up. They had better do their damndest to UNDO the destruction done and DO the good they are supposed to at least try to do. Because they can be out just as well as in. And we have not yet begun to fight.

And let's not forget Leftist Darling faux "Economist" Paul Krugman's wet dream - " …announce a fairly high inflation target over an extended period, and commit to meeting that target. What am I talking about? Something like a commitment to achieve 5 percent annual inflation over the next 5 years — or, perhaps better, to hit a price level 28 percent higher at the end of 2015 than the level today. (Compounding) Crucially, this target would have to be non-contingent — not something you'll call off if the economy recovers." Yes, Paul, raising the inflation rate to 28%. The guy's a walking billboard for a brand new Misery Index.

Meghan McCain's Huge Whaaaa Problem

I don't know what made me think of her. I was just trawling around, and happened upon Ace of Spades Headquarters, and Iowahawk and Jim Treacher and IMAO and all the good, funny, Tea Party/Conservative spots, and I guess I was just reminded of that whiny little blond girl who had so damn much to say that no one ever wanted to hear during the presidential election. Well, she's still saying it and she's still furious that no one wants to hear it, and she can't believe that no one wants to hear it. It's not a trainwreck, it's more like a little pink Hello Kitty round-cornered baby choo-choo wreck. With bubbles. She honestly doesn't get it. Why does she think she gets all these TV spots or anyone published her books? Because she's so interesting? Of course not, it's because she knows Sarah Palin and they're hoping for some dirt from someone who is openly jealous of her. (No, really, she is openly jealous; she doesn't even try to pretend anything else.) When you literally have to tell a TV interviewer that your book is interesting for all sorts of other reasons than Sarah Palin and he should be interested in those other things so please ask about them NOW, you're really a bubblehead.

Let's link up a couple of her recent articles - one is actually called The Palin Girls Don't Share wherein we are supposed to feel righteous indignation at Meghan being forced to do her own hair and makeup one morning when the Palins were hogging all the makeup artists. She actually likens this to taking the Red Pill in the Matrix, as though her reality is more interesting than the Matrix. (In most cases I'd agree, but in her case, the bubbleheadedness is so strong that I just can't - Mary Poppins is meatier than the stuff this girl writes.) She had never seen anything like the instant phenomenon of Palin, even in all her travels with...John McCain. Well, honey, I hate to break it to you but I wouldn't expect to see something like that traveling with John McCain, whose only contribution in 2000 was to scream "Campaign Finance Reform", which no one - absolutely no one in the whole damn world - could work up the vaguest enthusiasm for except him. The words alone are enough to put me to sleep, something that usually requires a double dose of Ambien. I'm glad to see you don't blame your father, though - since the only good thing he did was introduce Palin to the world before dying a rightful and quiet political death, and got the whole Tea Party movement going and all that good stuff - stuff I know you don't understand with your leftist "big-tent Republican" ideas. I mean Palin was even then the anti-McCain, even when she was using his talking points and supporting his stupid ideas; you knew it wasn't what she was really about. If she hadn't been, it wouldn't have been a race at all, but a vulgar humiliation for your dad, who would have gone down in flames far worse than he did.

"I found myself fighting to convince people interviewing me that my book was about things other than Palin and interesting for many reasons." Hehe. Yes, we know.

But then she gets naughty and here I have to correct her and take issue with her poor little baby heart - she then goes on to say that ALL the Tea Party/Conservative women are just knockoffs of Palin and that's plain horseshit. Michelle Bachmann is no clone; she's a bulldozer all on her own. And get serious; how long has Ann Coulter been around? She was working in the Supreme Court before Palin was on the PTA. What kind of disservice are you doing to women like Michelle Malkin to say she's nothing but a Palin knock-off? Honey, it's not the national obsession that's showing, it's YOUR obsession that's the problem here. So go ahead and write your petty little jealous screeds all you like, but next time don't make the mistake of thinking Palin came first and the rest followed like ducks in a row - she made a tremendous contribution and your father did one thing right in his life by giving her a stage to do it from, but the rest of 'em weren't spawned from her; this is individualism, honey - now go put on some makeup and fix your hair and look pretty for the cameras. And don't forget to dish up all the dirt on Palin you can in your next TV interview; it's the only thing that makes you remotely interesting.

Meghan's Palin ProblemBy the way I think comments are finally available again; I don't know where the wires got crossed but please comment if you're still here!

Stupidity on Display

Travis sometimes asks me why I slum around at such weird places online. Well, I like to know what the left "thinks." But it never ceases to amaze me that it hasn't ceased to amaze me the stupidity of your typical radical leftist. Why would I ever be surprised? They are of course whining that Obama's not destroying the economy and the entire system of government in the US quickly enough or quite the WAY they would, and they're mad that he's not doing it their way. What the hell do they care, the results are the same either way - Cloward-Piven meets Alinsky is still moving full speed ahead so what the fuck are they bitching about? Well, here's one; and it's gotta take idiot quote of the week. In reaction to some obvious morons proclaiming that Obamacare will not necessarily destroy all private insurance companies - obviously a proclamation being falsely made to allay the fears of millions who have a shred of a brain and know what that would really mean (or at least have an inkling) McEwan declares,

First of all, any government health plan that isn't good enough to drive private insurers out of business...isn't good enough, period.

Holy shit. No, you didn't read that wrong. I don't think she comprehends that of course, it is designed to and WILL put private insurers out of business; and it's written into the bill to begin with (guess she hasn't read much of it, like page 16.) Or that these people are out there claiming it won't do what it was designed to do because they want to get it passed and the only way to do that is to lie about what it is designed to do. Because people have some small idea what it is supposed to do, what it WILL do, and they don't want that. So you have to just bald-faced lie to them and tell them it won't happen. But see, she's so out there, so fucking looney-tunes, that she wants them to DO all this - to destroy the economy and our way of life utterly - while PROCLAIMING LOUDLY that that is exactly what they're doing, and screw anyone who doesn't like it. Honey, it doesn't work that way. That's like surprise buttsex without lube - you're not going to get most people to accept it; you have to slip it in a little more subtly than that, or didn't anyone ever teach you that open revolution and open coups have very very unpredictable (and often catastrophic) results? Grow up, put on your damn big girl pants and be glad - he's DOING IT ANYWAY.

Fortunately for you, you're looking like you'll get your socialist society complete with hellcare. Unfortunately for you, it is not designed to provide excellent health care to anyone, much less everyone. You're just too goddamn stupid to understand what it's really about. For the people with half a brain or more, here's a little synopsis from the bill of what we're in store for. I LOVE the part about how the federal government will have realtime access to your personal bank account at ALL TIMES - that's just fucking lovely. Heck, I'll put up the link and a partial list:

• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “judicial review” is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.

• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.

• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.

• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.

• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll

• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll

• Page 167: Any individual who doesnt’ have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.

• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).

• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.

• Page 203: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” Yes, it really says that.• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.”

• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you’ll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)

• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional judgment, etc.

• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.

• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.

• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!

Of course, Ms. McEwan is also sick of hearing about the August recess because it's important to ram this thing through before anyone has a chance to properly read and debate this monstrosity - just DO IT already, right? Even though she said it's not good enough. Sheer genius, I tell you.

Dumb Moonbat Quote of the Day

From Shakespeare's Sister - who apparently doesn't have even an infinitesimal shred of the brains of the bard:

Lest you think that Steele was actually motivated by principle, he justified his admonishment by noting that the "liberal media" isn't on Republicans' side, so they'll "get painted as a party that's against the first Hispanic woman" nominated to the Supreme Court. See, it's not problematic that they are against her on the basis that she's a Latina woman, but it is problematic when the media actually frames it that way.

Yes, she's serious.

Sotomayor: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

Like the "wise" decision to deny a dyslexic firefighter who worked his ass off to learn to read so he could study and pass his test his promotion, because no black men passed the test and he was white.

Prima facie - not fit to be a supreme court justice. I don't give a fuck what color she is or what her story is.

Rewind to Clarence Thomas and we hear the reporter Julianne dumbass saying right on the McLaughlin Group (NOT in blog comments, hello, but right on television) that "This man is on the court...I hope his wife feeds him a lot of butter and eggs and he dies, like so many black men do, of a heart attack." Could you picture if anyone said anything like that? Actually one person did - IN BLOG COMMENTS, about her diabetes. You can dig up any filth online, right? Though even his comment wasn't racist like the one about Thomas. But I'm talking about a reporter on a serious news show on television saying this right out loud. Could you IMAGINE?

People had no problem when it was Thomas, being racists on the left, because Thomas is a black man who refuses to be treated or behave as a token, or a pet - and that is how far leftists like Shakes view their people of color. Like pampered pets. It's disgusting. And it is racist as hell. See below for another black woman who would NOT be treated like a pet - for how the left treated her in print.

No, almost no one is against this woman because she's Spanish - who gives a shit about that? But we are against her because she's unfit for the office - she does not understand the division of powers and believes legislation should be made from the bench - which is not the purpose of judges, it's the purpose of legislators. Prima facie - not fit for the position.

Oddly, even her supporters have acknowledged that she is not the brightest bulb in the tanning bed - apparently when circuit judges pass around decisions for debate, she corrects their grammar and spelling instead of addressing the issues at hand, or, you know, THE LAW. But she's got a great story! That one I got from someone who LIKES her - but, you know, as Ace referenced the other day, I suppose dumb people need representation too, right? God help us.