Uncivil Discourse

Because civility is overrated.

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

More Torture

On the subject of torture, see this over at Slate.

Not-So Reluctant Idiocy

Memorial Day is a day for memories. Unfortunately, George Bush's memory seems to resemble pre-death Ronald Reagan's. America a "reluctant warrior"? This must be some new usage of the word "reluctant" I don't understand, given that despite our public protestations of "war with Iraq is a last resort", the Downing Street Memo confirmed what we've suspected all along, that the thought of that war gave Bush a boner the likes of which he hasn't seen since his frat boy days (where I believe hazings included being stacked up into a pyramid naked and having electrodes stuck everywhere).

Also, now that "Memories" is stuck in my head: fuck you, Andrew Lloyd Webber.

Better Than Any Twelve Steps

The Bush administration has a lovely two-step programme for dealing with allegations that it fucked up. We've seen this employed on any number of issues, but it came with sudden speed this past weekend, when more and more criticism came from entities such as Amnesty International over our human rights record.

Step 1: Denial, denial, denial. In the face of all evidence, deny. It doesn't matter if your denial has as much credibility as Ron Jeremy claiming he's a virgin. Here we have Dick Myers sticking his head in the sand, saying "I can't hear you!":

Myers said the report was "absolutely irresponsible." He said the United States was doing its best to detain fighters who, if released, "would turn right around and try to slit our throats, slit our children's throats."

"This is a different kind of struggle, a different kind of war," Myers said on "Fox News Sunday."

"We struggle with how to handle them (the prisoners), but we've always handled them humanely and with the dignity that they should be accorded."
This begs the question: why do doctors hate America? Time to cancel that fucking malpractice reform, stat. But even the military has accepted we've mistreated detainees as Gitmo. Even the FBI got into the irresponsible allegations. Of course, Myers also kept insisting he hadn't read the Taguba report last May. And in December, he was caught claiming "This attack, of course, is the responsibility of insurgents, the same insurgents who attacked on 9/11." So Dick has his head in Bizarro World, saying "Me have great job." What, you didn't think these motherfuckers chose someone named Richard for this job for a reason? After all, what's the tool of the motherfucker?

Of course, in Bizarro World, the Bush administration is competant.

And I'm not even going to touch on the "detaining fighters who would turn around and slit our children's throats." It's too easy.

Step 2: Outrage. Dick Cheney is offended and shocked, just shocked. The very notion that the United States is not all sugar and spice and orgasm makes Dick's withered little heart cry out in pain. Despite the whistleblowers (which always seem to accompany a good coverup), despite the FBI memos, despite the fact that this load of shit is the neocon guide to Arab psychology, Cheney, stroke-victim smirk intact, still knows we are the Platonic ideal of good. Sweet lord, he's just continuing to show why he needs to be raped by Abu Ghraib and Gitmo detainees, anally violated by Sunni cock so forcefully that the pacemaker jumps off of his heart and lodges itself into his throat.

See, Dick, even if we ignored everything else, even if we somehow believed you on Gitmo, extraordinary rendition is still torture by proxy. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." Let's look at it this way. Suppose Dick Cheney meets a girl, let's call her Carla. He kidnaps Carla, but his shriveled, limp penis is incapable of fulfilling his basest fantasies. Fortunately, he knows another man, let's call him Islam, whom he knows hasn't gotten laid in a while. Islam has his way with Carla for hours and hours, never stopping, despite her wailing and teeth-gritting. Meanwhile, Dick sits in the corner, smiling, thinking about the good old days, when he was paid well to rape Somalians and Cambodians.

Now, might we not say Dick, not just Islam, has subjected Carla to sexual violation?

The really funny thing is that despite Dick saying "For Amnesty International to suggest that somehow the United States is a violator of human rights, I frankly just don't take them seriously," the White House invoked Amnesty repeatedly while talking about how awful Saddam was.

Friday, May 27, 2005

The Motherfuckers Named

I'm going out of town today for the weekend, so I don't have time for more than a quick post. I'll be back Tuesday.

So here are the answers to the latest episode of Name That Motherfucker:

1) Bill O'Reilly, who really is just begging to be sodomized with a microphone, or better still, a broken lightbulb.
2) Chuck Colson. While Mr. Sodomized For Nixon's Sins went unnamed, he does get a special "fuck you" from catholic_girl.
3) Future Supreme Court nominee Janice Rogers Brown, named by Quasispace.
4) Assrocket over at HomoeroticLineBlog, Time's Blog Of The Year. Reading this post reminds me of reading Tucker Carlson's response to Barack Obama's Convention speech, where Carlson noted "Obama came out in favor of tax cuts for businesses...and he didn't mention the Iraq war." I never think I'm in the same universe as these fuckers.
5) Golden Boy Rick Santorum, named by Quasispace.
6) Scott McClellan, named by Quasispace.

Congratulations to all who played! And here for you is some bonus dumbassery, compliments of Charles Krauthammer:

On Monday, Republicans were within hours of passing a procedural rule that would have eliminated the Democrats' unprecedented use of the judicial filibuster...How much less is still a matter of dispute, but the fact that they settled when they had within their reach the means to restore Senate practice to the status quo ante 2001 is indisputable. That in itself is a victory for the Democrats and a defeat for the Republicans.

The Missouri Compromise of 2005, like its predecessor, has left a few things uncertain (including the fate of two long-languishing nominees, Henry Saad and William Myers), but two things are quite certain...Until 2001, not once in more than 200 years had a judicial nominee been denied appointment to the court by Senate filibuster...The Democrats broke all precedent by systematically using it to block Bush nominees in his first term in the hope that they would recapture the presidency in 2004.
Krauthammer not only managed to completely fuck up history from only less than a decade ago, but he even worked in a reference to slavery! Truly, Charles is a Master Wingnut, and we should all be very proud of him.

Thursday, May 26, 2005

Amoral Bootlicker Update

I fucking love Ted Kennedy, man. He doesn't give any quarter when he wants your ass not confirmed.

And Barack Obama is one hell of a righteous son of a bitch. He's driving something, I'm not sure what it is, but something, way up Bolton's over-mustachioed ass:

When I look at record of Mr. Bolton as top arms control officer at the State Department, I am not impressed. On North Korea, the approach advocated by Mr. Bolton and this administration has simply not worked. On Mr. Bolton's watch, no longer international inspectors or cameras in North Korea. North Korea has withdrawn from the NPT. They have drawn material for six to eight nuclear weapons...

Another area Mr. Bolton responsible for was the Non Proliferation Treaty. President Bush pledged to strengthen this treaty...What's happened since? Virtually nothing. The administration has made very little progress on this issue and the NPT conference currently under way is not going well. According to an article at MSNBC, the United States has lost control of this conference. Where has Mr. Bolton been on this? According to that article, 'Since last fall, Mr. Bolton, has aggressively lobbied for a senior job in the Bush administration. During that time Mr. Bolton did almost no ground work on the upcoming conference. Everyone knew it was coming....But Bolton stopped all diplomacy on this six months ago' In other words, Bolton was more interested in lobbying for the UN job than the conference...

Here's my point. If we thought Bolton was a super diplomat, we could maybe overlook the mountain of evidence of mistreatment of subordinates and misuse of intelligence....But the record indicates that in his current job he hasn't had much success. Why are we so confident that this guy is going to lead reform at the UN? As a consequence of Mr. Bolton's diminished stature, he is the exact opposite of what we need at the UN.

Also, videos of the floor speeches are going up here. And Washington Note has the Dodd-Biden letter which argues that voting for cloture on this motherfucker given the refusal of the Bush Administration to turn over documents related to Bolton's Syria testimony is tantamount to surrendering the Senate's capacity to "advice and consent." In other words, voting to end debate is the same as the Senate getting on all four knees and begging Dick Cheney to fuck them, doggy-style.

John Bolton: A Motherfucker of Legendary Proportions

I wasn't going to write anything about Bolton, since I don't think there's a ton more to be said, but the Hackish Professor approvingly links to this piece of tripe:

Voinovich has disgraced himself and disgraced this country.

Who do we want representing us as we engage the terrorists worldwide?

Voinovich and other metrosexuals in touch with their feminine sides or a tough guy like Bolton who has a take no prisoners outlook?
You know, I hadn't heard the "If we don't do blank, the terrorists win" line in a while. As before, I still think it's a winner. Think about it. You spot a hot woman or man in a bar. The sight immediately induces daydreams of weeklong sex romps. But before, you weren't secure enough to try to go attempt the pickup. Now you don't need confidence, because you can just tell the hottie that if you two don't get down to business, the terrorists win. After all, those damned Islamofascists hate wanton, carnal, lust-filled sex, and so every time we fuck, we're really striking a blow for freedom!

So there's a lot of potential there. Unfortunately, we've moved away from this to talking about the "culture of life" (more on this tomorrow). And really, how are you going to work that in to your long term plans to get laid as often as possible? "If we don't fuck long and hard, it'd violate the sanctity of life?" Yeah, right.

But anyhow, back to Bolton. RickinVA, whose anus the blog in question leaked slowly out of, describes Bolton as a "tough guy who takes no prisoners." But Bolton wasn't so tough when it came to Kosovo, as displayed on the O'Reilly Factor back in 1999, back in the good old days when Fox Nooz was just a small piece of the right-wing echo chamber, just a tiny little fart from that anus, y'know, the kind that precedes a mighty and torrid unleashing of shit.

Bolton began by stating, "I think that the United States is now involved in a conflict where it has no tangible national interest, where it has no clear objectives in mind, and where the ultimate outcome could be very risky for what our real interests are, as evidenced by the fact that we've already severely strained relations with Russia." Can't you see those exact words (maybe replace "Russia" with some other country) coming out of some liberal wonk's mouth over Iraq? Bolton, for the record, got a big boner over the idea of invading Iraq. But here, he seems to be doing his best Michael Moore impression.

O'Reilly, back before Al Franken caused a permanent twitch, added that we have a humanitarian interest, if not an immediate interest, and "And I find it difficult to stand by and watch another Cambodia, another Rwanda, unfold. And I believe the United States has a responsibility here."

And here, Bolton asks the magic question: "Let me ask you this, Mr. O'Reilly. How many dead Americans is it worth to you to stop the brutality?"

That's a damned good question. And since what we're hearing from the right is that the turning of the Iraq War into a crusade for democracy and babies was not a retcon, but the primary goal all along, why hasn't Bolton and his ilk been on Bush to ask that question? After all, Bolton adds "And the president has to be able to justify to himself and to the American people that Americans are about to die, or may well die, for a certain specific American interest."

Now, don't get me wrong, Bolton and his mustache is asking a good question. "Is it worth the loss?" is an important thing to ask. But when it comes to Iraq, it's not one Bolton, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, or any of the dumbasses who used the word "cakewalk" with regard to that country have ever asked.

And Bolton's motherfuckery continues, assisted by the Administration. Last September, Bolton gave testimony on Syria's capacity to have WMDs. The White House won't turn over documents requested by Congress concerning this testimony. Gee, I wonder why. There's a wide suspicion that Bolton exaggerated the intelligence and helped prepare the testimony himself, something he told Congress he didn't do. We already know he's tried to transfer/fire analysts who gave analysis that didn't square with his agenda.

He's an amoral bootlicker, too. During the hearings, he was asked about Rwanda, where he claims, concerning the US non-action, "We don't know if it was logistically possible to do anything different."

Oh, Bolton knows. He knows that the main reason Clinton couldn't do anything was that in the wake of Somalia, there was too much criticism from the right (and the left, particularly those types who, regardless of what happens, are convinced the two parties are "the same"). And when it came to anally raping that dead horse, John Bolton was right there in front. See, Bolton is a cocksucker of immense proportions. He's a continually lying motherfucker, a jackass whose assholeness cannot be conceived of by us finite beings. No wonder the right loves him so much.

As for Voinovich, while I have no great love for him, he gives me at least a little hope. This war has brought out the worst in us, from torture to blatant racism. We've lost a good lot of our soul to it. But maybe it, along with some other developments such as the filibuster battle, has helped to kick some Republicans and conservative Democrats in the ass and realize what it is that they've helped turn us into. Maybe, just maybe, it's possible to get away from a deal with the Devil. It's likely Bolton is going to be confirmed and that this is a complete non-starter. Unfortunately, I don't think this is the same party that had the good sense to bail on shitlicker extraordinaire Richard Nixon when they realized the consequences of being loyal sycophants. But a glimmer's there. What comes of it is up to them, but we should try to encourage it.

Wednesday, May 25, 2005

Why David Broder Can Go Fuck Himself

John McCain's a pretty lonely guy. McCain is hard to the right on many issues, but most Republicans can't stand him, much like most Democrats can't fucking stand Lieberman. McCain's with the Democrats on some issues, but again, he's a fucking wishy-washy neoconservative who's rather hard-right on a lot of issues. Outside of Arizona and people who vaunt themselves as being above the goddamned party system (and not even most of them, given he's an endlessly self-aggrandizing media whore, and if you somehow hadn't noticed this, just go look at the profile of him in the latest New Yorker), nobody really likes the bastard.

Now don't get me wrong: I much prefer John McCain to 95% of the Republican caucus. And most Democrats would probably tell you the same thing. Most Republicans would say that, well, he's better than a Democrat that would replace him. We don't like John McCain, but we don't mind him quite so much, cause we could use a lot more by trying to replace him. I'm not trying here to insult McCain, but he's like the safety chick you pick up at a club to fuck because you're too scared of being laughed at to approach the really hot girl sitting by the bar. It doesn't mean he's ugly like Manhands Ann Coulter, he's just what you settle for.

Plus, the guy has balls. But that's just the thing. McCain's what gets commonly called a "maverick," and that's why everyone in the media goes on and on about how adored he is by Americans, and especially the self-proclaimed independents.

But this has to do with his reputation for "telling it like it is" (despite the cocksucking he did over Iraq, among other things), not because he's a moderate. Remember in 2000, with the fucking "Straight Talk Express" that the media kept fawning over? Don't tell David Broder that, though. Broder, never a man show shy away from his (or anyone else's) ass, has decided it's because of McCain's ability to compromise that he's so dearly loved by everyone. But there's a good reason McCain would never get to a presidential election, contrary to what Broder seems to think. He couldn't win a primary. Nobody gives a shit. He'd have to run as Ross Perot-lite. But to Broder, and most of the rest of the Washington press, it's all good, because McCain likes them just as much as they like him.

Broder's not done speaking out of his anus, though. No, then he writes

"The success of the "Gang of 14" was a rare and welcome triumph over the antagonisms that have been so deeply rooted in the political generation that came of age in the 1960s and 1970s, when the nation was torn by conflicts over civil rights, women's rights, abortion and, most of all, Vietnam."
Rare, maybe. Welcome? Fuck no. What would've been welcome is for the Republicans who were pushing the "fuck history" option (credit to The Rude Pundit for labeling it as such) to have had their asses forcibly removed from their heads.

Look, compromise isn't something to be celebrated. It's not a fucking thing. It's a means for actually being able to get something done when neither side can sway the other. And that's why it's acceptable when people can craft a compromise that doesn't completely sell out your position, because shit's gotta get done. But it's not something to be welcomed whenever it comes up. Sure, sometimes it is, because spoogebagging runs rampant all over, on both sides of the divide. In this case, though, as in a good number of others, there weren't two sides to the issue, with both sides being equally valid from different perspectives. The Republicans were fucking wrong.

Sure, we can go on about how the right-wing would say the same thing about us, but they can't back that shit up, as has been demonstrated time and time again. Just because someone would argue something doesn't mean you give it equal validity. Not that the press follows that. I'm not sure who's more relativistic, the motherfuckers in the Bush administration or the motherfuckers in the media. Fuck 'em all.

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

Name That Motherfucker

Ok, since I'm pretty clueless about what's been happening in the world other than this filibuster thing, I'll let you play with some administration and enabling Motherfuckers while I get all caught up and angry.

1) This motherfucker thinks leg-pulping is on the same level as that staple of elementary school bullies everywhere, the wet willy:

"My take is that the US military is performing very well in terrible situations, and the abuse is the exception rather than the rule. But we're living in an age where if someone tweaks a prisoner's ear it's on the front page. And I think that's undermining the war on terror."

Anyone got a microphone handy?

2) "I have talked with the president about his faith, which, I can tell you, is rock solid. You may dislike the president’s policies, but challenging this man’s faith in this way—no, that’s out of order."

However, if the man is a sitting Senator running for president, it's perfectly alright.

Hint: This motherfucker found Jesus while being sodomized for another's sins. So really, he's just like Jesus, but with more ass sex.

3) This motherfucker thinks FDR was Stalin's ideological brother:

"Democracy and capitalism seem to have triumphed. But, appearances can be deceiving. Instead of celebrating capitalism’s virtues, we offer it grudging acceptance, contemptuous tolerance, but only for its capacity to feed the insatiable maw of socialism. We do not conclude that socialism suffers from a fundamental flaw. We conclude instead that its ends are worthy of any sacrifice – including our freedom...1937...marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution."

But on the plus side, Motherfucker #3 will soon have a new job battling back the forces of Marxism-Rooseveltism!

4) Motherfucker #4 demonstrates the type of connection to reality that has led to accolades for (s)he:

"He's wrong about Safire, of course; there were amply documented links between Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, which we've written about many times."

Bonus: This motherfucker adds "To my knowledge, Krugman's principal critics--most notably, Donald Luskin--have been scrupulously accurate in their criticisms, and have not engaged in the statistical sleight-of-hand to which Krugman is addicted."

Of course, whenever this motherfucker says "To my knowledge," it gives him all the freedom in the world to pull shit out of his/her oversized ass, since we all know (s)he doesn't actually know anything.

5) This motherfucker feels such an attraction to the same gender that if gay marriage were legalized, (s)he just doesn't know what (s)he would do:

"Yes, absolutely. It threatens my marriage. It threatens all marriages. It threatens the traditional values of this country."

Well, ok, then we know Nazis would be somehow involved. And at least this motherfucker can be glad no one's agitating for dog marriage, else there'd be even bigger issues.

6) Our last motherfucker continues to give us no evidence that (s)he is not actually a lapdog (and a rather stupid one at that), meaning (s)he'd better make sure (s)he's far enough away from Rick Santorum and James Dobson:

"The Constitution said 'advise and consent,' and that's the role of the United States Senate, not 'advise and block.'"

So to this motherfucker, there's not even really a need for a Senate vote, cause they're going to consent anyway, y'know, under the Constitution.

It's a Long, Long Road

Not much to blog on, been driving for the last couple of days, visiting my alma mater. While driving through the vast, endless cornfields of the real fucking America, I saw lots of signs about how Guns Save Lives.

Other than that these idiots need to join the pro-death penalty-as-deterrant types and the malpractice reform fools in a class where they learn about causality and not horribly mangling statistics, I'll only say that I think we can fairly dismiss you as a paranoid, crazy nudnik when your argument for why you should be able to take guns anywhere is to "even the score." Not the odds, the goddamned score.

And I'm rather torn by the filibuster "compromise." Three more pieces of shit to mangle the Constitution, but in the end, if we didn't have the votes, we didn't have the votes. The goal wasn't to get these motherfuckers on the bench, either, the goal was to get rid of the filibuster, allowing the Republicans more of an ability to ream the country. I guarantee you that these self-motherfuckers try to nominate the Virgin Ben Shapiro next, just to break the deal. This whole thing exposed just how in the thrall of the ugliest of the uglies of the religious right the Senate leadership is, and just how blatant their thirst for power is, principles be damned. This is nothing anyone who's been paying attention didn't know, but hey, clearly we're not the majority.

So all in all, well played, Harry Reid. Sometimes you have to suck 'em off and swallow the cum to get a nice fuck. We'll have to go through this again sometime, but for the time being, we'll take these three judges and shove them up Karl Rove's ass in 2006.

Edit: As he tends to do, Doghouse Riley nails it. I've got the tar, feathers, and spiked dildo. Can anyone give me a lift to Focus on the Family HQ?

Sunday, May 22, 2005

Wingnuts, Wingnuts, Get Yer Wingnuts Here

Two things from Crooks and Liars:

1) Jan LaRue has quite possibly the most stupid response to "There's no mention of God in the Constitution" that I've ever heard here (video in Windows Media). The idiocy would be mind-numbing if it weren't for the fact that she's from Concerned Women for America, which in fact makes it entirely predictable. Also, as for her desire to have state churches, I agree, and think we should follow s.z.'s list.

2) John Cole shows there are still responsible conservatives out there (though I'll be damned if they aren't disappearing faster than stories that displease the Republicans That Be) by making Hugh Hewitt, the most annoying blogger in America, his bitch, and really, we here at Uncivil Discourse can't get enough of Hugh Hewitt being bent over and spanked with a riding crop for being a fucking moron.

Sunday Quick Hits

1) Back in 2002, the Boring Mormon Orrin Hatch, who still no one is blowing, said of Priscilla Owen, "Today my colleagues are set to reject a nominee that is unblemished in every respect." Since then, words like "well-qualified" and "not a judicial activist" have been used to describe Owen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson (B-TX), on the floor, said

She is not a judicial activist. In fact, it is her strict adherence to the letter of the law and Supreme Court rulings that has been one of the problems with this nomination because she didn't make law. She didn't try to put words in the mouth of a legislator. She just followed what the legislature said in the parental consent laws in the State of Texas, the law of the State. She followed the letter of the law and the Supreme Court rulings and tried not to be a judicial activist. For that she is being accused of being a judicial activist.
We can even ignore the criticism of Owen by the Secretary of Detainee Ass-Rapings himself, which used those exact damned terms. And now we have this: members of the Houston Bar Association, in one of the most conservative cities in the country, have decided she, well, sucks some skanky ass. Recently, Fox News said "Republicans say Owen is one of the most qualified nominees before the Senate."

I don't think that's been contradicted here. No, it makes it make all the more sense (which is unusual for something said by a Republican these days). I can't tell you how shocked I am (really, I'm absolutely shocked) that Bush is putting up these kinds of nominees. After all, raping the federal judiciary is agenda item one, isn't it?

2) Billmon skullfucks Godwin in a most satisfying manner.

3) Taegan Goddard points us to the latest Democracy Corps poll roundup, which shows that maybe, just maybe, people are figuring out that Bush is a fucktard who has no business running anything larger than taco stand. Majorities are saying he's screwing up on every issue but the war on terrorism, where his approval rating is down to a lean 53%.

So, let's get this straight again. Bush's numbers suck right before the election. In an election with unverifiable results, bitch wins re-election. Then his numbers slide back down in the shitter. Meanwhile, with his self-proclaimed Man Date, he leads the call for changes which make absolutely no fucking sense at all if there's even a slightly plausible possibility that you won't ever be out of power. And we're supposed to not think there's something crooked here? Come to think of it, my ass feels rather sore. It feels like we've all been fucked there. Hard.

4) Rick "Gays Can't Tell The Difference Between Dogs And Men" Santorum: "I've never read the Bible cover to cover; maybe I should have." Also, he's "not a reader of scripture" and instead prefers magazines "offering commentary on religion."

Shocked, I tell you, just shocked.

5) James Watts shits out something, which the Post, living up to their full role as a leader of the goddamned media, thought it would be good to run. Oh, and the sexually repressed Assrocket over at HomoEroticLineBlog has given his sycophantic approval. Let's just say that I agree with the Closeted One over at the Blog of the Year when he says Watts was enjoying a "well-deserved retirement."

It's a good thing for James Watts that he didn't get a blowjob before he lied to a jury. Otherwise he'd be in the toilet with the right for having subverted the Constitution and freedom. But he only lied about selling influence, so it's all good. But now that he's not going up in front of any juries, maybe the brother could use one of the hummers Orrin Hatch isn't getting. It might stop the future flow of some of this drivel.

Edit: Looks like TBogg weighed in on that last one yesterday.

Edit again: Attytood shows just how far the NYT Magazine has its proverbial nose up Santorum's not-so-proverbial anus.

Friday, May 20, 2005

More Dog Fucking

Atrios wonders if the MoveOn standard will apply to Santorum and passes on Santorum on Byrd.

I'm going to bet both of these get overlooked by the Motherfuckers That Be, cause it's what they do best, being extremely accomplished motherfuckers and all.

Nice Rules You Got There, Be A Shame If Somethin' Happened To Them

Dogfucker Santorum:

[What the Democrats are doing is] the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying, 'I'm in Paris. How dare you invade me. How dare you bomb my city? It's mine.' This is no more the rule of the senate than it was the rule of the senate before not to filibuster.
(from Talking Points Memo).

First, let's say this: fuck Rick Santorum, right up his dumb ass. Doesn't he quite get that people who hop on board a "pre-emptive" invasion of countries predicated on made up charges shouldn't be comparing other people to Hitler? Probably not, the same way he couldn't understand that Terri Schiavo couldn't swallow (a point even Sean Hannity grasped). So fuck 'im.

Second, the Rude Pundit used a nice analogy yesterday to describe what these shitheads are doing:
In other words, let's say you play chess with the same person every day for 100 years without either of you castling. You never had any agreement you would never castle. You just never did it. Then one day, you decide to get out of a sticky situation by doing the whole rook-king do-si-do. Sure, your opponent may get upset, but fuck him. It's the rules. Tell him to shove his bishop up his ass and move on.
Except now Santorum's not just getting upset because you're castling, he's claiming there's no fucking rule allowing you to castle, it's just something people let people do.

Being as it's Rick Santorum, he's completely full of shit. If you look closely, what king of all motherfucking rules 22 says is
"Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?" And if that question shall be decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

So what is it exactly that these shitheads are trying to do? They're trying to set a precedent that it takes 51, not 67, votes to change the rules however the Senate Majority Leader wants. Look at the WaPo's script for how this would play out.

See the fucking shells moving? They're not changing the specific rule. If the Catbutcher had gotten 67 votes to say "Your monkey asses can't filibuster Priscilla Owen any more," that's one thing. That's what all the media motherfuckers are saying this is, just a change to prohibit judicial filibusters. But no, as usual, they have their heads shoved so far up their asses they're swimming in stomach acid. This is much, much fucking worse. This precedent says that any rule can be changed as the majority leader wishes so long as he has 51 votes. "Nuclear option" indeed. As Josh Marshall put it in this fantastic post, "This is about power; and, to them, the rules quite simply mean nothing."

Fuck history, fuck the rules, fuck the Constitution. This is a completely arbitrary, but far-reaching precedent that's being set here by these shitheads, which demonstrates, yet again, their complete lack of respect for, well, anything. History, from day one, has been shat on (remember all those goddamned stories about how Gore should just go into the corner and shut up because, after all, even Nixon was a good boy when he lost a close race?). The rules have always been a crock; remember Florida in 2000? And the Constitution's been nothing more than dusty old piece of parchment. They'll tell you it's all about your point of view, while saying postmodernism's the currency of the goddamned liberal elites. Foucault is somewhere cackling with pleasure at everything this group does, especially as more and more of their prominent supporters turn out to be sexually repressed deviant fucks.

Digby also notes that we're going to see a flood of whines from the idiotic masses on the right about how Byrd made a Hitler reference so everything's ok. Read it. That's a fucking proper historical reference. Nobody is being compared to Hitler, he's talking about how arbitrary rules changes can be. Now, of course Byrd chose Hitler, of all the plethora of examples of this type of shit, to cause a stir. But I suppose it's hard for these shitheads, who are too busy getting papercuts on their dicks from trying to screw the Constitution as many ways as they can, to understand that someone's actually trying to use history to make a goddamned point, not just as something to ejaculate all over.

Thursday, May 19, 2005

Quick Note

Iraq turns another corner. Shit, with all this corner-turning, they're going to turn right into Lebanon.

Israel And Palestine Have Nothing On This Shit

That's right, it's time to hear about the Clenis. Now, for those of you who aren't aware (for whatever reason), "Clenis" is a contraction of "Clinton's penis." Now the Clenis, it seems, is responsible for everything from bin Laden to the drug problems in this country. Oh, there's more, there's more...but it's not that important. What is important is that the Clenis continues to play an important role, not only in our society, but in the discourse on the right.

Christ, it's going to be 150 years down the road and we'll still hear conservatives screaming, almost to the point of orgasm, about how hard they've been fucked by the Clenis. I think it qualifies as a fantasy at this point, with them thinking about the hard, erect Clenis, blown in the Oval Office, nailing them hard up the ass.

Our first stop is with the slimy toadcunt herself, Ann Coulter, who would need to be long dead before I, let alone a player like Bill, would put my penis anywhere near her (maybe by then the Adam's Apple will have shriveled up). Ann's contribution to the Newsweek wankfest has to do with the Clenis.

See, one of the major factors in the Clinton "scandals" (and good lord, I can't even bring myself to call anything the last administration did a scandal after what we've been through with these raging shitheads...it's like calling someone rubbing his penis around your ass an anal raping after you've been in prison with some big white supremacist fucks who get you into a corner in the shower) was the press, particularly one Michael Isikoff, who you might recognize as the unreliable source-using motherfucker who was also responsible for Newsweek's latest debacle, not that you'd hear that from the screeching harpies on the right.

Ann, however, isn't hiding from the fact that Isikoff was involved. In fact, she thinks he's an "ace" reporter. And the biggest problem with Newsweek in the past was that they just didn't let Isikoff run whatever poorly sourced shit he was spewing out (also, apparently it's true that Willey and Jones' allegations were all fact now...thanks Ann!). Ann doesn't want to blame Newsweek for the riots, because we all know how irritable Muslims are, and that's why we need to stripsearch anyone who looks like they might be a Muslim. But it's the double-standard, you see: Newsweek didn't just run Tales of the Clenis, but they did run this, despite them being by the same reporter. The fact that there were no new allegations in Isikoff's latest crusade to end journalism is apparently not relevant at all, which makes sense, if you think about how little facts usually are relevant in Ann's writing.

Our second and final stop on the Clenis Express comes courtesy of the always amazing s.z. over at World O'Crap. George Costanza look-alike Jay Bryant claims the Clenis is responsible for, well, anyone who thinks there's any kind of complexity or subtlety in the world, even if they're using that to lie. And we all know all of them are. But more than that, Clinton is responsible for Democrats hating Jesus by opposing Bush's judges. On the other hand, Bryant's column is sort of cool because it uses the word "whizzinator."

Where will the Clenis show its nefarious head next? Only time can tell, but I bet he's responsible for Putin backstabbing Bush on freedom.

Wednesday, May 18, 2005

Gorgeous George vs. Norm the Knave

Man, George Galloway gave the biggest "fuck you" to the US Senate since the days of Ann Coulter's favorite Senator, Drinkin' Joe McCarthy. Either it's all a lie, and he's the biggest perjurer this side of Caspar Weinberger, or damn, Norm Coleman just got served.

Norm, you see, is a complete moral midget. He's a small little cumbubble sitting on a tiny little penis. This is a man for whom "weasel" is praise, an unprincipled opportunist extraordinare. That he replaced Paul Wellstone, who, agree with him or not, was a good person who actually cared about people, is one of the great political tragedies of the last decade. Norm was apparently good as the Democratic mayor of St. Paul, before becoming a wholly paid subsidiary of Karl Rove, Incorporated. It's not that he simply became a Republican. The Gutless Wonder has become a complete Bush sycophant, sucking at the cock of Dubya, with no signs of independent thought. He's too busy jerking off Those Who Be in the Republican party, opening up his ass for their penetrating pleasure. Norm has most recently been associated with the effort to anally rape Kofi Annan.

But now, for Norm, it's time to put up or shut up, something he hasn't been faced with yet. Galloway was uncompromising and didn't dance around anything. So now it's on Senator Scumbag, and frankly, this ain't gonna do it:

Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., questioned Galloway's honesty and told reporters, "If in fact he lied to this committee, there will have to be consequences."
See, that's nothing but character assassination, a whispering campaign, something Norm's gotten lots of practice at when it comes to Kofi. And because Galloway, who is by all accounts quite the shithead in his own regard, left no wiggle room, either he's got to put up evidence or he's got to back off. Of course, for Norm, the third option is to continue clinging in the shadows, trying to slime everyone, but if he doesn't produce evidence Galloway lied, finally we can ask him, "Have you no shame, asshole?" The Honorable Member from Bethnal Green & Bow did it in a less straightforward fashion:
He selected Mr Coleman as the focus of his wrath, adding: "You have nothing on me, Senator, except my name on lists of names from Iraq, many of which have been drawn up after the installation of your puppet government in Iraq.

"Now I know that standards have slipped over the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer, you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice."
Looks like the Gorgeous George Show has been as successful in America as it was in the UK. I'll toast that.

Edit: Roger Ailes notes Galloway had some choice words for Hitchens as well. A popinjay? I don't even think I know what that means.

Tuesday, May 17, 2005

More Newsweek Asshattery

The National Review has a story, of course, on Newsweek (and I swear to god this is the last thing I'll say on this crap). Well, ok, it's less a "story" than a "piece of inane drivel drooled by the mouth of someone with less brain function than Terri Schiavo."

Again, and this cannot be reiterated enough, there was absolutely nothing new about this. Hear that? Nothing. These claims are not verified, but they're not new. They did not start with Newsweek as these insipid morons claim. They'd be too busy staring at their undersized cocks to see themselves getting fucked up the ass without a goddamned condom. No sense of the big picture whatsoever.

See, demonstrations happen. Denunciations happen. Those've been happening since day one by many of the people Marshall cites. This is nothing new. What is new is the rioting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, which Marshall conflates with the demonstrations. And again, note that this shit only blew up in these places. That's it. Nothing else. No Sadrists are out there burning shit down. Nobody's getting violent in Riyadh. Doesn't it seem like, just maybe, this isn't the result of spontaneous anti-Americanism blowing up after Newsweek published some shit?

And of course Newsweek only played into their hands by retracting it. This is Dan Rather all over again. After that shit, no one could ask a question, as legitimate as it might've been, about Bush's National Guard service. CBS, at least trying to do something honorable even as they did it ineptly, rushed something out and got called on it. But then it tainted everything else. The right-wing media hung up the dessicated corpse of Dan Rather's career in front of everyone as a warning of what would happen if you talked about Bush and the Texas Air National Guard. And now the same thing is going to happen with allegations of mistreatment of prisoners. We won't be able to hear a thing about it without some scoffing allusion to the Newsweek story. See, censorship is the issue, but it's part of the issue. When they can't keep it censored, this is how they work, to discredit anyone who asks these questions ever again.

Newsweek shouldn't have retracted a fucking thing. The story wasn't discredited until they pulled it, they just caved to the voices of the echo machine. Hell, I'd be more surprised if there hadn't ever been mistreatment of the Qur'an given some of the shit that's been documented. And after all, there have been a lot of reports. And they'd all have to be wrong. Which is possible, but given everything else, less likely than the alternative.

It's revealing what the reaction to this was. Instead of giving our word, for what little it's worth in the Muslim world, that we would do everything we could to ensure that if this happened, it would never happen again, there was a massive pileon on Newsweek, with a lot of criticism for having the nerve to publish something that'd been alleged several times. That'd be like David Hager screwing his wife's cornhole while he slept, his wife, sobbing, telling her sister about it, who told her friend, who confronted Hager publicly for having "raped" his wife, and Hager responding, "Yeah, I fucked her while she was unconscious, but shit, you should've known how explosive this was gonna be, so this is your fault for doing it in public without hearing it from her."

No, they shouldn't have retracted anything. Fuck.

Time To Lynch Us Some Liberal Medias

As predicted (and really, it's like predicting that the sun's gonna come up in the damned morning), fools be blaming the Newsweek incident on the "liberal media," spectre though it may be. First, in the linked column, Dennis makes the claim that

If an American interrogator of Japanese prisoners desecrated the most sacred Japanese symbols during World War II, it is inconceivable that any American media would have published this information. While American news media were just as interested in scoops in 1944 as they are now, they also had a belief that when America was at war, publishing information injurious to America and especially to its troops was unthinkable.
This is accompanied by another Townhall column claiming "Plenty of Americans no longer regard the media as automatically, reflexively, on America's side in foreign contests."

What I don't understand is why this kind of rally-round-the-flag wankoff is a good thing. Plus, as Arthur Silber so aptly notes, it's not like this was the first mention of Qur'an desecration at Gitmo. Or second, or, hell, the third. And we know nasty shit goes on down there, particularly since as Sy Hersh noted oh so long ago, it's a "factory for eliciting intelligence." Is it the position of the conservatives in question here that they're shocked, just shocked, that someone would allege mistreatement of prisoners? Or that even after Abu Ghraib, that someone might try playing on the neoconservative caraicature of "the Arab mind," as a means of getting intelligence out?

And shit, getting back to the real world and not the made up circlejerkland of Wingnuttia, isn't it just a little funny that these riots are only happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and not in, say, Iraq or Syria? Doesn't it seem like it might be that those societies were just primed to believe any anti-American story coming down the pike? You gonna blame that on Newsweek, too? If not, let's start trying getting some answers, because it might actually be a little important, don't you think?

Course, these are the same bitches that were upset because the "liberal media" was ignoring the "We found WMDs!" stories that kept circulating amongst themselves a year or two ago, which, y'know, was completely baseless, and as far as I know, they're not accusing themselves of lying. I definitely don't see them retracting any of their crap. Go figure. I keep having this fantasy of them actually being engaged in the real world, despite knowing better. It's so tragic that poetic justice isn't justice, because between this particular piece of assery, Neil Horsley, Jerry West, and so on, the right would be reaping just what it sowed.

Edit: The Poor Man has its take. And Digby notes the following quote from Lawrence DiRita: "The nature of where these things occurred, how quickly they occurred, the nature of individuals who were involved in it, suggest that they may be organized events that are using this alleged allegation as a pretext for activity that was already planned."

Now we're getting somewhere.

How Would I Amuse Myself Without These People?

I really don't have a fucking clue. Via Sadly, No!, Michelle Malkin and her ilk are being stupid ass bitches again (and I just know how shocked you are at this). It's good that I'm more amused by wingnut stupidity than anything else. That's probably a defensive mechanism of some sort, of the type that would make Freud proud.

I took a peek at the site Michelle links to, right here, and wow. To spare some of you from having to view this horrid display of idiocy, let me note that the topic in question is a shirt that says "My daddy's name is Donor," made by a company founded by a lesbian couple.

That should say it all, right there, much like when Bush goes around holding I Am Charlotte Simmons.

Monday, May 16, 2005

The Silk Road Stained

The worst kept secret in Central Asia, hell, in the former Soviet Union is that Islam Karimov is one hell of a son of a bitch. Karimov is the president of the Republic of Uzbekistan, one of the five so-called CARs (Central Asian Republic) and the nation that dominates the lush Ferghana Valley. Karimov is the man Vladimir Putin would be if he didn't have to maintain a pretense of dignity, a man who enjoys dunking his political enemies in boiling oil.

But Karimov's personal political enemies aren't the only deep-fried saps in Uzbekistan. See, Islam Karimov is a very good friend of arch-motherfucker George W. Bush, who has at times welcomed him warmly to the White House. But of course this makes sense: shitbirds of a feather flock together. They're such good friends, in fact, that Uzbekistan has been a repeated destination for prisoners being extraordinarily rendered.

And of course, recently, Uzbekistan has been in the headlines. There's a major fucking revolt happening there with lots of blood. Now, for those of you who haven't been paying attention to this region, Uzbekistan is the furthest of the five CARs from being anything resembling a democracy save Turkmenistan, which is the very model of a modern major cult of personality. The only criticism of Uzbekistan, in fact, by a major Western nation as of a year ago was by the British Ambassador, who declared in 2002 in Tashkent "Uzbekistan is not a functioning democracy, nor does it appear to be moving in the direction of democracy." So as you can see, this is exactly the type of government the freedom-loving George Bush likes.

I won't go into too much detail on political dynamics in Uzbekistan, or on the al-Qaida affiliated Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan. But let's give Bush some credit. In the former Soviet Union, he's at least said good things about two popular revolts which led to an increase in democracy, those being in the Ukraine and Georgia. And what was the response by Scott McClellan on the recent events in Uzbekistan?

"The people of Uzbekistan want to see a more representative and democratic government. But that should come through peaceful means, not through violence."
But of course, we had to retcon the Iraq war to be about giving the people of Iraq a more representative and democratic government, which did not have to come through peaceful means.

And before anyone starts, don't get me wrong. I understand we can't police everywhere (and with these clowns in charge, it doesn't seem like we can police anywhere). But these bullet-brained cockmonkeys are so blatantly hypocritical in who they support and who they don't, and somehow they think Newsweek is the source of this particular instance of violent anti-Americanism in the region? We welcome this skidmark to the White House, talk positively about him, give him tons of aid (while learning certain things from him for use in Gitmo), but meanwhile, we go on and on about certain instances of human rights violations in certain countries while actually sending people over there to be tortured. I half expect Assrocket to start going on about how the evil liberal media is conspiring to undermine Karimov by painting him as someone about as bad as Saddam Hussein, when he's really one of our best friends. Maybe when he gets back from the desecration story circle jerk.

Meanwhile, this country, host of a good chunk of the Silk Road, home of one of the most vibrant faiths in the world, Sufi Islam, is stained with the blood and shit of thousands, some of whom we've shipped over there precisely so they can ooze.

And for those of you who are interested in keeping abreast of updates, The Registan is an excellent source.

Edit: Check Billmon and Steve Gilliard.

Quoth the Imbeciles, "The Media Is Liberal"

Is it just me, or does the media keep fucking itself up the ass as hard as it can at every turn? Of course, you've also got Nick Kristof declaring the grass is green.

And I bet soon we will see a renewed flood of "THE MEDIA IS SO FUCKING LIBERAL AND OUT TO GET CHRISTIANS" cries from the ignorant masses at such places as Townhall and Fox News (despite, y'know, being a part of the damned media, a fact which should shame all of us). See, these masses are composed of some of those who would rather bite off their own balls while fingering their assholes than actually do research or take the time to form a coherent thought before spouting their drivel.

We've already got scumsucking pieces of bong resin over at Little Green Footballs and Drugdge claiming Newsweek caused the riots. Arthur Silber deconstructs this particular piece of idiocy nicely. But hey, I don't expect people who think that somehow the media reports went back in time to change public opinion on Vietnam before they were ever printed/aired to grasp the subtle intricacies of causation.

More on this later.

Saturday, May 14, 2005

Culture of Life - Christian Charity Edition

For the first time since 1960, what is probably the bluest fucking state in the country, Connecticut, executed someone. Champion of life and devout Christian George W. Bush, if you recall, made extensive use of capital punishment as governor of Texas. Hell, executions have been in decline since Bush left the state.

See, we here in America love the death penalty. We love it so much, after liberating the hell out of Iraq, one of the first things we did was to let them restore it, even though most states just out of a wanton despotism have banned it, knowing just how subjective the idea of "justice" is. But hey, those countries are mostly anti-freedom, like Germany.

Why do we love the death penalty? Oh, we like to say it's for the closure, for the sense of karmic justice. What goes around comes around, after all, and if someone lets themselves get convincted of a capital offense, they probably deserved it. I mean, the poor cocksuckers probably did something wrong; hell, they're fucking poor, so clearly they're doing something wrong (recall that to the guardians of our culture of life, the rich are better than you).

But there are other reasons, too. The death penalty helps ease overcrowding in jails, and for the love of god, don't attribute that to a moronic war on drugs that locks up potheads with rapists and murderers. Plus, the death penalty has a sort of nebulous deterrant effect, cause we all know most murderers think about exactly what they're doing before they do it, and they all think they're going to get caught.

Ah, but the real reason lies below, in our barbaric little subconscious. It's a nice blood lust we've got going, the same type of desire to see others shit and piss themselves while spasming that led to minimal outrage over Abu Ghraib and the abuses at Gitmo while also leading us to support a pre-emptive war without even so much as trying to look at any evidence (which sounds kind of familiar, since most schmucks who babble on about OJ haven't seen any of the evidence, either).

But see, death is even better. It lets us get that nice little high of revenge, which is even better than fucking smack, man, even if it doesn't last as long. We see it when we let the grieving, angered families of victims go off in front of cameras and in courtrooms. Hell, you'd think the desire of the families was the centerpiece of our farce of a judicial system. In theory, justice should be blind, but shit, that's a disability, and our justice is strong and masculine and definitely not nude.

And from here on it leads. Death can't give closure. If you can't get closure from screwing your cheatin' ex-wife's sister up her sweet, sweet asshole (in a way David Hager would be proud of), you're not gonna get it from a controlled, "clean" execution well after your family member is gone. Do we honestly think there's some substitute for a loved one? Death isn't enough for what we want it to be. No, then we need torture. Inflict some of the pain on those sons of bitches that they inflicted on us, right? Even Eugene Volokh, the Internet's favorite constitutional law professor, wrote:

I particularly like the involvement of the victims' relatives in the killing of the monster; I think that if he'd killed one of my relatives, I would have wanted to play a role in killing him. Also, though for many instances I would prefer less painful forms of execution, I am especially pleased that the killing — and, yes, I am happy to call it a killing, a perfectly proper term for a perfectly proper act — was a slow throttling, and was preceded by a flogging. The one thing that troubles me (besides the fact that the murderer could only be killed once) is that the accomplice was sentenced to only 15 years in prison, but perhaps there's a good explanation.

I am being perfectly serious, by the way. I like civilization, but some forms of savagery deserve to be met not just with cold, bloodless justice but with the deliberate infliction of pain, with cruel vengeance rather than with supposed humaneness or squeamishness. I think it slights the burning injustice of the murders, and the pain of the families, to react in any other way.

And this about a member of the Axis of Evil. Tsk tsk.

Ah, but back to the late Mr. Ross. The CNN story discusses the sister of one of his victims:
Stavinsky's sister, Debbie Dupris, said the execution did not give her the closure she was expecting to feel, but it did serve a purpose.

Of course it didn't. But that's why we look forward to the next one, and then the next one, expecting finally, we'll kill enough people to have closure. And even though it didn't work for Batman, it'll fucking work for us, won't it?

And until then, the guardians of the culture of life will tell us how great the death penalty is, and why we gotta impeach judges who try to outlaw it for kids. They'll go on and on about how Jesus would want us to electrocute or poison these bitches, for as he put it in The Gospel of Assholes, "Judge and condemn to death, lest ye be killed." They'll be everywhere, reminding us that clemency is not a form of charity, and the only Christ-like thing to do is to cast the first stone. After all, who can better mete out God's punishment to those who may be guilty than us?

Monday, May 09, 2005

In addendum

In other news, The Poor Man is is hitting left and right.

Everybody's FDR-Hatin'

As far as I'm concerned, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was the greatest president of the last century, and easily one of the top five presidents ever. See, that crippled motherfucker had balls of steel. He stood up to the bankers, to the Republicans, to the entrenched elite, to the pieces of shit that continued to profit during the Depression, both as governor of New York and then as President, and we know how tough it is to stand up to the elite interests. He realized how stupid the gold standard was. Hell, the only bastard that was more radical than him at the time was that fabulous scoundrel Huey Long. He was so fucking righteous that people in his hometown dismissed him as a traitor to his class. Then FDR helped lead us through World War II before his untimely death, but by that time, he'd completely changed how we view government and helped to show just how right John Maynard Keynes was.

Fucking great bastard. But now, less great bastards are trying to snipe at him where it's safe, when he's dead (I'm pretty sure FDR could kick their lily-livered asses all the way back to Hyde Park if he could have, y'know, kicked).

First there's that abortion of Social Security "reform," which entails gutting a retirement insurance program to create a nice little Ponzi scheme, as the vicious Paul Krugman makes clear here. The most beautiful part of the debate over this was when the right collectively pulled down its pants and started masturbating to FDR's long since rotted corpse, as seen in this Progress for America ad which fades at the end from FDR to Bush. Of course, the entire thing was cover for actually destroying FDR's baby, but hey, it's not like there's any lack of sexual deviancy on the right. Can't you just see Rick Santorum fantasizing about a three-way with FDR's corpse and a hound dog?

It's fucking surreal, but hey, they keep invoking MLK as an anti-affirmative action advocate when the son of a bitch said "A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro" and in fact helped start the first successful affirmative action program, Operation Breadbasket. Still, it was very entertaining, and I kept waiting for them to dig up Huey Long's corpse and start dancing around it, shouting "Share our wealth!"

And now, we have this: Bush Faults WWII Legacy in Europe, particularly Yalta. Sure, there are pretty words, such as "Once again, when powerful governments negotiated, the freedom of small nations was somehow expendable. Yet this attempt to sacrifice freedom for the sake of stability left a continent divided and unstable. The captivity of millions in Central and Eastern Europe will be remembered as one of the greatest wrongs of history" and "We will not repeat the mistakes of other generations -- appeasing or excusing tyranny, and sacrificing freedom in the vain pursuit of stability...We have learned our lesson. No one's liberty is expendable. In the long run, our security, and true stability, depend on the freedom of others."

Of course, it helps if they're actually free, and not, say, liable to be rounded up to be sent to Gitmo or (formerly) Abu Ghraib for the flimsiest of reasons, but we can ignore that for the time being. The important thing is that, in this speech, Bush transported FDR's skull to Latvia, where he proceeded to bore a small little hole right below the chin, which he then proceeded to vigorously fuck, stroking it up and down his cock like it belonged to a horse.

Let there be no mistake: this was a class A, wet, loose shit dropped all over FDR's legacy. And in addition to that, it indicates a complete lack of touch with history, that all so inconvenient burr in the side of Republicans (take for example, when they go on about how Democrats were responsible for opposing the Civil Rights Act, when most of the jackasses doing so bolted shortly thereafter to join the GOP). See, as awful as the Soviet government was, they were the motherfuckers who broke Germany's back. See, the Soviets won World War II in Europe, and we helped. As much as we like to pump up our national ego, that's how it went down. They were going to get their due there, and we wanted to stop them from getting involved with Japan. Steve Gilliard does a good job handling the historical side of this shit.

And of course, if Bush really wants to tread on the issue of sacrificing the liberty of small nations in exchange for freedom, he could always start with his ideological godfather, the Gipper, and the man he tried to appoint to investigate 9/11, Henry Kissinger. These two slimebags did more of that than probably all of the other Cold War players put together. It was practically a combination of the Great Game and the carving up of Africa with these bitches. So I fully expect to see the freedom loving Bush to start going off on Reagan and Kissinger any day now.

Shit, it's incredible how Bush can find it in him to apologize for our past national "mistakes" even if he can't acknowledge he made any himself (at least as of last April, where he couldn't come up with a mistake he had made when asked at a press conference). If the douchebag really wants to start saying he's sorry, the Center for American Progress has a nice list here of things he could try, and that's a year old.

Edit: Max Blumenthal notices some similarities between Bush's speech and Ann Coulter's favorite Senator, Furious Joe McCarthy.

Sunday, May 08, 2005

My Kind Of Jackass

Sometimes, others put shit so well, all you can do is quote and applaud.

From Crooks and Liars, Poor Mojo
has an open letter from Ajai Raj, the upstanding citizen who had the cajones to ask Ann Coulter about buggery.

Some of my favorite bits:

From the beginning I was yelling obscenities along with my friends, roaring at Ms. Coulter's right-wing bullshit festival the way no one else had the balls to. Mr. Sampath writes in his article that (and this is my take) the protestors were told to be good all along. They were told to sit in the back and hold their signs and leave quietly. No wonder hippies get such a bad rap nowadays; protestors today might as well be ornaments on the Rightmobile. When I want someone to know I'm pissed off, I'm going to throw down and give them a good shit-ruining. I wanted to show Ms. Coulter that people are down if she wants to hold a circle-jerk, but we're not gonna do it her way. Not me, at least.

Knowing that taking the time to say something insightful, specific, or even slightly critical would get me a lame comeback and a ticket back to my seat, I realized that the only way to win this battle was to fight fire with fire. Or bullshit with bullshit.

Did I give a shit? No. If I had a message, it's that the whole thing was a joke--hell, our whole political scene today is a fucking joke. Everyone's out to either pat themselves on the back for being right or whine about how they're being wronged without ever lifting a finger to fight for it.

Fuckin' a, brother, fuckin' a. This motherfucker's got it spot on. Someone give him a medal, or a cookie, or something.

And it's an absolute outrage that he was arrested for what he did. All of us should be outraged by this. Vulgarity is not a fucking crime, even if there were little kids. But hey, in a world where Michael Powell runs the FCC, who knows what shit's next?

Saturday, May 07, 2005

Bush Lied, Suckers Died

Ok, can we just admit that we were fucking lied to already (link from Stupid Evil Bastard Politics)? I know it's hard to believe, but George W. Bush is not the most honest motherfucker out there. What will we tell the children?

That's right. A lie. Not "exaggerated." Not "deceived by the overwhelming body of evidence."

You'd think, especially from conservatives, and particularly those of the more wingbatish orientation, it wouldn't be this difficult to understand what a damned lie is. After all, they're the ones who constantly tell us about how Clinton's lying about his hummer undermined the very fabric of the Constitution. Hell, when it comes to Bill, they can't stop finding things he lied about. If Clinton had said "I have never gangbanged a farm animal while snorting cocaine during a full moon," you'd see a rush even from the more "mainstream" (i.e., less obscenely deranged) conservative pundits. Shit, William Safire, Robert Novak, and their entire ilk would be creaming themselves thinking of new ways that Clinton's latest bout of lying had put something or the other at risk. And then when it turns out it wasn't a lie, that Clinton really has never put little Willy near a cow's cooch, all we'd get are veiled references afterwards to it without anything somewhat resembling an apology.

And yet, here Bush was lying to us all along, but they can't even fathom the possibility that their golden boy could tell a lie. Sure, we here on the Internets realized this early on, when Bush was claiming some kind of close link to al-Qaeda which made no sense in any universe, and when despite Rummy's smug certainty (it was one of those things that was a known known, or actually a known unknown), we didn't find any WMDs in Iraq. Sure, it was easy to say that Bush was misled by bad intelligence estimates or that he was led astray by those around him, by those cocksucking bastards at the CIA or the cherry-picking, Viagra-popping, Colin Powell screwing neocon asshats at Defense.

But can we finally use the word "lie" now? Do we get the stamp of approval from the mainstream media? I mean, come on, this thing happened, as the story puts it, "while the Bush administration was still declaring to the American public that no decision had been made to go to war." So he lied about not being sure about war, he lied about us knowing Saddam had weapons, he lied about having removed "a close ally of al-Qaeda's," and so on. Lie, lie, goddamned lies, leading to, so far, 1,772 coalition deaths and at least 20,000 civilian casualties.

Obviously this shit's happened. Nothing now can change the fact that Bush lied and we invaded Iraq. But this is more than just bellyaching. See, it seems indicative of, well, something that people get more outraged over a blowjob than lying to start a war. Clinton got impeached. The best we get is a letter being circulated among Democrats and head-shaking about "conspiracy theorists on the internets." It's important that we come to terms with exactly what a lie is, and that some lies are actually really, really important. It's important to hold these motherfuckers accountable, though it's probably too late to do anything meaningful now that we've re-elected the bastard, which I'm sure had absolutely nothing to do with the media's stern disapproval of those of us who figured something was fishy all along here. While, of course, they couldn't get over themselves rushing to interview the Swift Boat Veterans Against The Truth, even after that group had long since been discredited.

And I'm not seeing CNN or the Times use the word "lie". Of course, I didn't even see the Times say a word about this, though maybe they will. Are they worried it's "too polarizing," as Kristof complained? Does it make the discourse a little less civil?

Too fucking bad. You don't get to call yourself a news organization if you can't actually face facts. If it turns out Bush was himself one of those cherry-picking cocksuckers, you have to say that. It's bad enough that they equated Kerry's comments about Cambodia in Christmas with the mass sum of bullshit this administration's projectile vomited. Here, they're acting like the ostrich, just burying their heads in the sand while more people die because Bush lied.

Maybe we really do need to implement Les' idea. I'll round up the interns, someone else strap Bush to a chair. Then, perhaps, this cowboy shit can end.


I'm busy today, so I won't be posting anything else, but check it:

1) The Poor Man on wingnuts;

2) Pat Robertson not realizing he's being taped (over at Rev-Mykeru, via Digby.

Thursday, May 05, 2005

Time To Unliberate Iraq

Marriage, you see, is a sacred thing. In fact, if you listen to certain individuals who are best referred to by long strings of obscenities rather than their given names (for example, that shit-licking toadfucking knuckle-dragging twatsickle, or that brain-dead remnant of an intestinal infection who wouldn't know the difference between his penis and an ant if his penis actually moved), it's the single most sacred thing known to man, which is why all homosexuals need to be herded into camps as the deviant, marriage-ruining, ass-sex loving perverts that they are (note of course that deviant, marriage-ruining, ass-sex loving heterosexuals are a-ok, especially if they're Republicans).

It seems, though, that those damned ungrateful Iraqi heathens have taken this "freedom" we've so graciously bestowed on them a little too seriously. See, under Saddam, these "pleasure marriages" - short term contracts for sex - were, how do you say, illegal, and even talking about them could land one in jail. Ah, the good old days, when Iraq was moral, pleasure marriages were outlawed, and it was totally ok to put people in rape rooms or sic dogs on them for no reason (whereas now in our too-free society, such a thing is viewed as an atrocity). But now they're legal, and may even be given a constitutional protection!

I fully expect to see such moral luminaries as James Dobson, Rick Santorum, and Pat Robertson demand that we in no way give the impression of supporting a regime that would undermine the sanctity of marriage in this way, after the valiant effort that they gave to protect marriage here at home, in a society that's already God-forsaken and secularist. After all, it's not like Iraq's engaging in apartheid or anything reasonable like that, and we should not let them go wrong only months after starting!

And I can just see the stickers those patriots at CPAC will be selling next year, right by the ones that say "No Muslims, No Terrorism." Oh, they will be full of some witty wordplay on Islam, and maybe some fun slogans about how without Muslims, marriage would be completely alright. Those cocksucking fools will come up with something so brilliant, I can't even begin to think of what it might be.

And meanwhile, it's time to mobilize those troops, cause when we said they were free, we really didn't mean it, any more than we're truly free here. See, freedom would include something like a right to privacy, a right to choose whom you have sex with without being demoted to second class citizenship, and so on, and we all know we clearly don't have that. No, we can't let Iraq become the affront to God our relativistic society has been. It's unliberation time, motherfuckers!

Busy Day

1) Why the hell does Google have a story from Hack Central Station as a "news" headline? I'm really, really confused, because that shit's not news.

2) Conservatives, including the motherfuckers in the Bush Administration, like to say that government has no capacity to properly spend money, which is why everything and their mothers need to be privatized. And I'll be damned if they aren't doing their best to do what they think government is supposed to do with money - waste it.

In March and early April, Pentagon audits showed more than $200 million in questionable costs in a massive, no-bid Halliburton Co. contract for delivering fuel to Iraq. Later in April, an inspector general's report concluded that a British security firm lacked proof that its armed employees had received proper weapons training and that the Army had not provided enough oversight of the company's work. And last week, a Government Accountability Office report said U.S. officials had all but abandoned their responsibility for overseeing a contract under which employees of CACI International Inc. had conducted interrogations at Abu Ghraib prison.

Brookings Institution fellow Peter W. Singer said the disorderly atmosphere was all the more reason authorities should have been taking extra precautions against fraud. "You want to be even more careful in those chaotic environments because people take advantage," he said.

Not that these goat-suckers know anything about taking advantage of chaotic situations or loose fiscal situations.

Who wants to bet that in a few years they turn around and point to this as further reason to privatize something or the other due to the inherent incompetance of the government, instead of their own stupid asses?

3) We continue to turn yet another corner in Iraq. Then factor in how much we've been turning on, say, the economy, and we're so dizzy we can barely stand up. It's no wonder, then, that Bush can read a comment like "the insurgency is as strong as it was a year ago" as "I think he went on to say we're winning, if I recall."

Of course, then he went on to state:
But nevertheless, there are still some in Iraq who aren't happy with democracy. They want to go back to the old days of tyranny and darkness and torture chambers and mass graves.

And in that sentence, our complete inability to come to grasps with what's happening in Iraq, and why we will likely not be able to really make progress until someone competant is in charge, is summed up. He doesn't fucking get it. None of them do. Former Baathists are a small piece of this group.

Think about it like James Dobson's combover. There's a small amount of hair there, to be sure. But a complete inability to come to terms with reality has caused him to try to spread it out across his bald skull so that he can pretend it's all still there. Similarly, a complete inability to come to terms with reality has caused Bush to spread the intentions of former Baathists out over Sunnis who fear disenfranchisement and Iraqis who just plain don't like us (and dear me, I can't imagine any rational reason why that might be so...they must just hate freedom and want to go back to being tortured and raped).

The problems that Iraq has to face are tough enough without waste and incompetance getting in the way. But hey, it's what these guys, and their chums like Ahmed Chalabi, do best. And you gotta do what you can.

Edit: The Rude Pundit has a nice list of quotes about corner turning in Iraq.

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

A Case Study In How Not To Think

This next trip into the world of stupid creationist pseudo-science and pseudo-philosophy is not so much specific to Intelligent Design, but it's a beautiful demonstration of the sort of fucking idiocy that is at the root of the creationist world, including the ID twits.

Our tour guide is this faux-intellectual bitch, whose wankery needs to be laughed at vigorously. The motherfucking author needs to be castrated to prevent this level of pretentious stupidity from being passed on (though, given he wrote a book called Homosexuality: A Disease And For Gays A Cult this punishment for crimes against thought might not be bad enough). Some highlights:

Godel’s Theorems are totally unpredictable and unprovable! Godel’s first theorem is that in a system of complexity, questions exist that are neither provable nor disprovable on the basis of the axioms in the system; that is true statements are undecidable even if known to be true because they cannot be decided as true on the basis of the system as known. Godel’s second theorem is that the system is always incomplete because new undecidable elements will always be present such that contradictions occur when the system claims it has decided all; that is, the system will generate more undecidability.

My day job is in an area that gives me passing familiarity with Godel's Incompleteness Theorems, a non-stupid discussion of which can be found here. The important thing is that these theorems deal ONLY WITH MATHEMATICS. Nothing more. At all. Yet fucking morons who want to seem pretentious and intelligent continue to masturbate using them. This particular cuntwad declares "Basically, Godel’s theorems prove the Doctrine of Original Sin, the need for the sacrament of penance, and that there is a future eternity. Godel’s Theorems mean, that in the human complex, things will go wrong and there will always be a “defect” of sorts about which forgiveness and corrective action will be needed."

Do I need to say another fucking word? Of course, his knowledge of math is completely and thoroughly demonstrated by the claim that "Godel's Theorems are unprovable."

Also from the same brainless wonder, we have this gem, which is not only my favorite, but rivals the Little Green Footballs comment earlier for sheer stupidity:
Scientists discredit themselves by abortion which discredits all who are not against abortion as a “medical procedure.”Actually, anyone for abortion or who does not protest abortion has forfeited the right for moral argumentation about anything and have proven themselves gullible and susceptible to anti-life activity, discrediting them completely. First of all, one must realize that abortionists will kill you. (Anyone who does, is for, who does not protest abortion, IS an abortionist!) Abortionists may not kill you now, but they would have then. Because abortionists would have killed you, they cannot be believed about anything, right or wrong.

This guy's a real winner, let me tell you. Let's play a game, which I feel this passage just screams for, much like Ann Coulter screams while thinking of getting fucked by the zombie corpse of Joe McCarthy. Whoever can come up with the best parody line of "Because abortionists would have killed you..." will win points, which can be redeemed for, say, valuable rare coins.

This quote definitely makes me understand a little better how people can state matter of factly that pretty much every specialist in climate change is engaged in a big conspiracy to deceive us. They're fucking morons.

Name That Motherfucker (not really, though)

I don't have a new NTM for you, but I felt it's been so long, I should give out points from last time.

Congratulations to our winners, Petie (who successfully named Secretary of Non-Education Spellings) and catholic_girl (who realized the motherfucker even Pat Robertson can't stand is Ralph Reed). Also, extra credit to Quasispace for putting them in the same post!

What The Fuck Is Wrong With Kansas?

I've written about the religious right a couple of times before, but man, these guys are the fucking gift that keeps on giving, and giving, and giving. And they'll continue to give until this country decides it doesn't like wannabe theocrats.

Recently, the Kansas Board of Education decided it would be a good idea to have a "trial" for evolution. For those of you who aren't bombarded with this shit on a regular basis (for example, those of you not residing in the United States), there has been a long standing movement ever since evolution was first taught in science classes (note: this didn't happen on a widespread basis until the launch of Sputnik, which should tell you a lot by itself) to try to a) stop evolution from being taught, and b) teach Christian creationism.

And now Kansas, one of the more ass-backwards states in the country, has decided it should have a courtroom-style "debate" on the merits of evolution versus intelligent design, the latest incarnation of this fundamentalist garbage. Now, I'm not going to call creationists stupid (though I think "special creation" is, as long as you don't take it to be science we're cool). But what I am going to say is that it should be fucking obvious that there is no goddamned way to hold that creationism of any sort, including "intelligent design", is science, and thus is entire charade is a complete waste of time and money meant to further creationist arguments (which originated right in their puckered little anuses).

Frankly, I don't think this need any more justification. If it's non-naturalistic, it's not fucking science. And no, Phillip Johnson, you goddamned twat, this is not a naturalistic bias, it's an operative assumption. We can't explain shit if we take the existence of God to be a given in science, because then everything is "Because god made it so." That's not science, it's bullshit, so get your ignoramus nose back into law and out of science.

Take for example this quote, by the dickhead "representing" creationism:

"We're not against evolution," said Calvert. "But there is a lot of evidence that suggests that life is the product of intelligence. I think it is inappropriate for the state to prejudge the question whether we are the product of design or just an occurrence."

The state's doing no such thing, and this really shouldn't be that difficult for anyone with the intelligence of a fucking slug. You're talking about what's being taught in science classrooms. The key word there being "science." If you're supposing there's some supernatural intelligence that created life, not only are you horribly begging the question (come on, why is it not natural to ask "If complex life requires an intelligent designer, why doesn't an intelligent designer require an even more sophisticated designer?") but you're also violating a simple tenet of science: naturalism. Anything that's not naturalistic is not science, and hence does not belong in a science classroom.

Again: Why the fuck is this so difficult?

And this could be constructive, because intelligent design is a great case study for examining what is and is not science. ID is very carefully designed to give every impression of science except at its most fundamental level, and it would be educational to ferret it out. Oh, but the jackasses on the horribly non-appropriately named "Kansas State Board of Education" aren't actually interested in something like, say, education. That would make just a little too much sense, so they're using this to help fuck the notion of science right in its ass with a cross. A wooden one that leaves splinters all in science's butt, man.

All this would just be laughable if it weren't spreading. All over, douches are trying to further this. And this shit needs to be stopped.

In any case, for constant updates on the idiocy of intelligent design and most of its prominent adherents, see The Panda's Thumb. Also, Digby has the latest shit on James "How Not To Go Bald With Dignity" Dobson, and The Rude One reports on Pat "Minorities Shouldn't Get Special Benefits Unless They're White" Robertson.

Sunday, May 01, 2005

Yet More Shit I Can't Make Up

Little Green Footballs. You know them. They're the guys that make Freepers look like sane, rational political commentators.

Via Catch, it seems one of these nauseous pigskins has decided to fabricate a complete lie about Al Gore. Let's quote!

In a speech to the wacko-leftist group MoveOn.org, Al Gore showed that the Democratic party has moved on from those primitive “Bush=Hitler” talking points, and now believes the best way to appeal to the base is by portraying “right-wing religious zealots” as a monolithic threat, far more dangerous than Islamic radicalism (what’s that? huh?)

As Kevin pointed out in the Catch post, Gore in fact never said any of that shit.

Oh, and by the way, any of you motherfuckers that haven't read Gore's speech, go do so right now (it's in the Catch post). It's fucking righteous, man. Al Gore has become the sanitizier of our political discourse, blazing through the shit and speaking to our better angels while saying truth to power. And of course, now he must be destroyed, because we can't have that shit sullying up the perfectly good America-fucking that's going on.

But, back to the subject, here's what I think Gore could've said that would've pleased this particular toadfucker:

"We don't like the religious right, but they're a much better alternative than if we suddenly gave into al-Qaida! That's why we needed to invade Iraq, you traitorous motherfuckers."

Think that would've worked?

Yeah, you're probably right. They would've shit themselves chortling about "inventing the Internet" before going back to masturbating to thoughts of being able to use the remnants of Saddam's rape rooms on some unsuspecting Iraqi women (or men).

At the risk of sounding like Michael Moore, there is no right-wing religious threat.

It's true! For example, the Wahhabis are decidedly not a threat, since we know they're religious and, well, right-wing.

Are these people allowed to leave their homes (well, ok, those of their fucking mothers who should've known better than to get drunk and stoned while pregnant)? Please tell me they're not. For the love of god, tell me they're not.

That's not the best quote of all, though. Digby highlights this one, and I have to agree:

"This aggressive new strain of right-wing religious zealotry is actually a throwback to the intolerance that led to the creation of America in the first place," Gore said as many in the audience stood and applauded.

Another thing that gets me about this statement is the hypocracy of it. I get told by Leftists all the time that this nation was founded by enlightened folks who wanted to create a secular nation. Does anybody else see the logic error in stating that religious zealots wanted to create a secular nation?

This is the point where I have nothing more to say. If anyone is evidence of the failure of our education system, it's this bitch right here, who probably needs to be sodomized with a broken light bulb. Maybe one that's been dipped in something caustic.

If they absolutely have to be able to fucking leave their parents' houses, can we at least stop them from using heavy machinery or sharp instruments? Trust me, it's for the good of the damned country.

Look, normally I'd probably say that these shitheads weren't even worth noticing. But LGF got a lot of play from the media whores for "exposing" the "Dan Rather forgeries" (despite every point them making being false, and much as a shit-throwing monkey at a zoo may hit once in a while, they hit on the general notion that the documents weren't verified), and they're partially being held by as examples of how great blogs can be (as well as the folks over at HomoEroticLine (though it's less so now that they dropped their nicknames, which is too bad). Let's not also forget that it's because of shit like this that the crap about "inventing the Internet" got started before being given legitimacy. Finally, it's these cuntrags that puffed up dicks like Bill First and Rick Santorum truly represent. And it's important to make sure people know that, even if you have to pound it into their thick, Bush-re-electing skulls.