when the status quo frustrates.

Luckily for Ann, speech rife with hypocrisy is TOTALLY protected by the First Amendment

Saturday, April 10th, 2010

Normally I ignore Ann Coulter completely, but this is just too priceless to pass up. See, it appears that Ann is terribly, terribly upset by the evil deeds of the Westboro Baptist Church.

…[The Westboro Baptist Church is a] Kansas-based cult, consisting mostly of members of a single family, traveled to Maryland in order to stand outside Matthew’s funeral with placards saying things like, “God Loves Dead Soldiers,” “God Hates You,” “You’re Going to Hell,” “Semper Fi Fags,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Thank God for IEDs” and “God Hates Fags.

..Unlike many legal concepts, the tort of IIED is not an obscure legal doctrine written in pig Latin. It means what it says: speech or conduct specifically intended to inflict emotional distress. The usual description of the tort of IIED is that a reasonable man viewing the conduct would react by saying, “That’s outrageous!”

The Second Restatement of Torts (1965) defines IIED as conduct “so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”

…Thanks to idiot lawyers, who think it makes them sound smart to say “Black is white” and “Up is down,” one of the biggest problems in society today is the refusal to draw lines. Here’s a nice bright line: Holding malevolent signs outside the funeral of an American serviceman who died defending his country constitutes intentional infliction of emotional distress.

(…excuse me, I’m having a wft?! moment..?)

This from the woman who has stated publicly, several times, that four specific women whose husbands died horrible deaths as firefighters trying to save the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack, areself-obsessed witches who enjoyed their husbands’ deaths?

Oh, but she does anticipate this. She, you know, only participated in the exact same outrageous, extreme, atrocious behavior while “publishing [her] views in a magazine, announcing them on a…radio program, proclaiming them on…”Countdown With Keith Olbermann”. Which makes it perfectly okay; the reason the Westboro Baptist Church should be slammed by the forces of Justice but she should be allowed to drip venom without so much as a hiccup is because, you know, the Westboro protesters were standing outside the soldier’s funeral doing it. All she did was list her targets’ names on national TV, public radio and in published print…over and over and over again…which is clearly much less specifically and personally directed with intent to inflict emotional distress!

Sorry, Ann. I can’t tell the difference between you and the Westboro Baptist Church, frankly. But maybe you could genuinely help the rest of us stop their insane, disgusting behavior–if you could tell us what would stop yours, then maybe we could put that information to good use shutting them up, too.

I’m all ears.

…but you know, it’s really kind of okay to “call a bunch of people who are retards, retards!” As long as it’s Rush Limbaugh doing it.

Friday, February 5th, 2010


Remember this?

According to the Wall Street Journal, Rahm Emanuel called liberal activists who wanted to run ads against conservative Democrats “f—— retarded” in a closed-door meeting at the White House. On her Facebook page, Palin likened Emanuel’s “slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities” to using the “N-word,” something she deemed “unacceptable” and “heartbreaking.” Emanuel later issued an apology to Special Olympics chairman and CEO Tim Shriver.

However, Palin’s conservative cohort Rush Limbaugh took offense to people, presumably including Palin, protesting Emanuel’s remark. On his radio show, Limbaugh lamented that “our political correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards.” That comment caused Greg Sargent to request a reaction from Palin’s spokeswoman.

Yesterday, when asked for comment on Limbaugh’s use of the “r” word in a recent broadcast, Palin spokeswoman told Greg Sargent of the Washington Post, “Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name-calling at the expense of others is disrespectful.”


Today, Stapleton claims the statement was meant generally and she was not specifically referring to Limbaugh.

…I mean, if he’s gonna tirelessly promote her new book after also tirelessly promoting her for Veep during the 2008 elections...it’s not like he’s some kind of nasty, sneaking D-e-m-o-c-r-a-t, after all!

Because racism’s dead. You knew that, right?

Thursday, October 15th, 2009

Interracial couple denied marriage license in La.

NEW ORLEANS – A Louisiana justice of the peace said he refused to issue a marriage license to an interracial couple out of concern for any children the couple might have. Keith Bardwell, justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish, says it is his experience that most interracial marriages do not last long.

“There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage,” Bardwell said. “I think those children suffer and I won’t help put them through it.”

Yep, children from those marriages, even the ones that don’t last, I mean it’s not like they could e-v-e-r grow up to become President of the United Sta—

“I’m not a racist. I just don’t believe in mixing the races that way,” Bardwell told the Associated Press on Thursday. “I have piles and piles of black friends. They come to my home, I marry them, they use my bathroom. I treat them just like everyone else.”

Mostly I think of “piles and piles” as describing my laundry. And did he seriously just brag about letting black people use his bathroom..?

I sure love living in “post-racial” America!

Wow. Just…wow.

Tuesday, September 29th, 2009

Shorter Glenn Beck: I’m channeling Sarah Palin! though the blatant-yet-cunning racism I manage to display here may be tipping the scales on my Stupid/Evil Ratio more heavily towards the E.

(hat tip Pam)

It’s Banned Books Week!

Monday, September 28th, 2009

I love Banned Books Week! Some of my favorite books of all time are banned books…I mean, check out this list of classics! Admittedly, a lot of the banning action took place decades ago, but lest anyone think we’ve relaxed our deathgrip on the minds of our children in this new millenium, here are a nice collection of more recent incidents to sneer at:

Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Sallinger: Removed by a Dorchester District 2 school board member in Summerville, SC (2001) because it “is a filthy, filthy book.”

Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck*: Banned from the George County, Miss. schools (2002) because of profanity.

Brave New World by Aldous Huxley: Challenged in Foley, Alabama (2000) because of the depictions of “orgies, self-flogging, suicide” and characters who show “contempt for religion, marriage, and the family.” The book was removed from the library, pending review.

The Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien: Burned in Alamagordo, N. Mex. (2001) outside Christ Community Church along with other Tolkien novels as satanic.

If you’re interested in the most up-to-date reporting on the 2008 open season on communication of unapproved ideas, the American Library Association puts out a yearly list of the books that are challenged, restricted, removed or banned–see if your favorites are on there too!

Leaving you with the bittersweet taste of irony, from January of this year. Enjoy!

*I might sympathize with an attempt to ban it from required reading lists–yes, it was on mine in high school–based on the fact that it sucks ass and there are at least one hundred more interesting and compelling novels that could immediately and happily replace it…but no, I have to defend John Steinbeck’s biggest load of crap evar based on principle. A shame, but there you have it.

Polanski arrest worse than Nazi aid

Monday, September 28th, 2009

A woman named Joan Z. Shore from Belgium founded an organization called Women Overseas for Equality. Sounds like a good thing, right? I mean, I tend to be for equality whether or not you and I are separated by large bodies of water, but unless she’s straight-up old-school colonialist about it, I can endorse being concerned about the combination of Women, Equality, and Oversea-ness.

Now, last I checked, America was overseas from Belgium. And it has women in it. And sometimes those women are raped by famous movie directors who flee the country when a judge catches that person acting like an a-hole after making a plea deal that will get him off scot free.

Now, I could be completely hammer-to-the-head insane, but doesn’t it seem like “equality” is meant as a synonym for “justice,” and that justice for a woman who is raped is, at the very least, to see her attacker brought to justice? I realize Polanski’s victim just wants the case gone, but there’s also the question of the broader social implication of just letting rape go if you’re famous and rich enough to evade the law for a couple decades. That doesn’t seem like much equality to me.

Apparently Joan Z. Shore disagrees. But before we get into that, let’s be clear about something: The Swiss used to be cool.

I used to admire [The Swiss] — their clean, orderly, decorous way of life. Their stubborn independence and self-reliance. I forgave them for the years they never joined the United Nations, and even now, not joining the European Union.

I always love talking about a nation’s people like they’re identical beings popped right off the national assembly line. Who doesn’t love the Borg?

There was so much affection wafting from Shore towards the Swiss that she even waived the Wand of Dismissal o’er the Swiss collaboration with Nazi Germany:

When I learned, years ago, that they had blithely allowed German military trains to transit their country during the Second World War, while claiming Swiss “neutrality,” I was shocked, but tried to excuse them on grounds that they were protecting their country from invasion and armed warfare.

But now? This Roman Polanski extradition is, objectively, the most heinous act in the history of the multiverse.

Arresting Roman Polanski the other day in Zurich, where he was to receive an honorary award at a film festival, was disgraceful and unjustifiable. Polanski, now 76, has been living in France for over thirty years, and has been traveling and working in Europe unhindered, but the Swiss acted on an old extradition treaty with the U.S. and seized him!

So, we have understandable Nazi compliance, but “disgusting and unjustifiable” extradition of an admitted rapist escaping punishment. This seems like a clear-headed view of the situation.

Making this an even more sensitive equivocation by Ms. Shore, Polanski was a Holocaust refugee. I wonder what he’d say if you put this question to Polanski himself: is it easier to forgive a country for turning over a wanted criminal or for letting the Nazis ship troops and supplies on its railways?

I won’t answer for him, but I will say this: Switzerland may be brought to their knees by Shore’s uber-classy, enlightened call to action.

I suggest, in the finest American tradition, we protest this absurd and deplorable act by smashing our cuckoo clocks, pawning our Swiss watches, and banning Swiss cheese and chocolate.

And let them yodel all they like.

Sounds like a person totally invested in equality to me.

Twit, with cool response.

Saturday, May 23rd, 2009

Oh, Charlotte Allen–remember her? (I hadn’t, til I saw this on my Twitter feed from PZ.) In case you’ve forgotten, she is the, um, journalist? who penned these deathless words last year re the popularity of Barack Obama’s presidential campaign amongst the gender female:

[I] wonder whether women — I should say, “we women,” of course — aren’t the weaker sex after all. Or even the stupid sex, our brains permanently occluded by random emotions, psychosomatic flailings and distraction by the superficial. Women “are only children of a larger growth,” wrote the 18th-century Earl of Chesterfield. Could he have been right?

Kyso did the takedown on all that here and here–as with Ann Coulter’s blatherings, I couldn’t be bothered myself–if you tell me you’re stupid, psychosomatic, superficial, etc, I’m not gonna argue with you, and I’m certainly not going to bother my pretty little head about anything you might have to say subsequently to you informing me of that.

And amazingly enough, she’s at it again! This time her preferred target isn’t the gender female–it’s Teh Atheist! If you read it, it becomes rapidly clear that she’s never actually really read anything any atheist has ever written past the title of the works, but hell, people never let that stop them from cranking out detailed critiques, do they..? :D

Much like with the misogyny essay and resultant Q&A, I can’t be bothered to deconstruct it; I choose to let better minds than mine do that. Check out PZ’s LA Times’ letter instead–it rocks.

So can we officially rename them the Republican Dorkwad Party?

Wednesday, May 13th, 2009

So stupid it’s hard to believe they’re actually wasting valuable oxygen on their brain cells coming up with this stuff.

If I were a registered, voting Republican, I think I’d be a little concerned about the RNC’s priorities at this point. But that’s just me; maybe most Republicans think this is, like, really superimportant!! :) I wouldn’t know.

(Hat tip to Auguste and Pandagon.)


Friday, April 3rd, 2009

Hi. I’m a 21 year old white male. I just graduated from Oberlin College and will be attending Columbia’s graduate program in journalism next fall. My still-married parents have paid for everything in my life to the point where I’ve not had to hold a single job. Ever.


I need another movie about a depressed well-to-do white boy like I need someone to rip out my teeth with pliers. Enter Adventureland, one of the most tone-deaf comedies I’ve ever seen. If you like feeling sorry for privileged Nice Guys(TM) chasing cardboard cutouts of actual women, check it out.

Two thumbs up. Its own ass.

Finally! I’m so excited that I get to weigh in too

Monday, March 2nd, 2009

My heroine when I was aged 7 or 8 (far left). Other than the long hair, it is distressingly difficult to tell her apart from her two penis-bearing companions. I’m really amazed that Vox approved of this.

Amanda at Pandagon writes fairly often about the new Battlestar Galactica TV series. I don’t really read those posts beyond the occasional skim, primarily because I don’t watch the show and therefore the in-depth angst and debating about character motives, plot lines, etc. end up being pretty meaningless to me.

As it turns out, though, I should’ve been commenting on ‘em all, all along! This dude, who I have vague memories of reading about a few years ago and coming away with the impression that he has bad hair that he’s really proud of (and my memories are so vague, I may even be confusing him with someone else, but that would mean that I have no memory of him at all–so let’s hope, for his sake, he’s at least the bad-hair guy)…but as I was saying–

“Vox” (that is his name, right? Like, that’s such a classic Battlestar Galactica name, too!) begins his article by stating the following:

Starbuck goes off on the new “Battlestar Galactica” in a 2004 essay that looks increasingly on target as the current series fades away.

“Starbuck?” By this does he mean “Dirk Benedict, the actor who played the character “Starbuck” in the original series..?” This strikes me as an odd way to refer to a person–like stating that “Conan” gave a speech about the state of California’s budget last week. Then again, I’m not sure that Dirk Benedict has actually done anything of note since his role in the original Battlestar Galactica series, while Arnold Schwarzenegger has, so maybe that’s not the best comparison I could make. But anyway, I’m going to have to fly with the assumption that we are talking about Dirk Benedict, as it’s never cleared up one way or the other during the course of the article.

The embedded paragraphs, presumably from “Starbuck,” are pretty lame. Whatever “Starbuck’s” acting qualifications were or are, a future as a professional writer does not seem to be in the stars for him. For instance, slamming the current remake because it doesn’t conform to the old-school moral principles embodied by, he holds up as examples, Margaret Thatcher and Katharine Hepburn–and the flaw here, he states, is because the current remake is clearly female-driven. Which makes me wonder what men he thinks were in control of the programming of the Margaret Thatcher and Katharine Hepburn cylons that rendered them “male-driven”…or really, if anything resembling “thought” entered into the writing of those paragraphs at all. I would agree for sure that “emotion” did, though, especially this part:

The male characters, from Adama on down, are confused, weak and wracked with indecision, while the female characters are decisive, bold, angry as hell, puffing cigars (gasp!) and not about to take it any more….

As I recall, the only character on the original series who puffed a cigar was…oops, you guessed it…”Starbuck.” Hell hath no fury like an aging B-grade actor’s signature prop scorned! I admit I did feel a pang for him when I read that “cigar” line, though. Poor guy!

But back to my original theme–why I never comment over at Pandagon on the Battlestar Galactica threads, nor have I written anything at all anywhere on the subject–because, as I said, I don’t watch the show. HOWEVER–! Vox has taught me that that is not a requirement to parse the thing down to its bones–these are the only requirements you need!

1. Quite liked the cheesy original show
2. Watched about three minutes of the “re-imagined” version

Well, hell, me too! On both counts! So let’s see what the Voxster has to say:

In that three minutes, the blonde Cylon chick murdered an infant in its stroller, then had sex with someone as her metal backbone glowed red.

You know, my three minutes of viewing time ended up being a sequence where a bunch of people were standing around talking at each other in a vaguely spaceship-y, futuristic setting. I also failed to bird-dog Janet Jackson’s exposed nipple during my viewing of Superbowl XXXVIII. I wonder how it is that I never tune in in time to catch the interesting, anti-family-values shit, like evar. Is it all a massive coincidence of timing, or is it perhaps more likely that I don’t run around desperately searching for the most sensationalist viewing bytes in any given programming to enable my powerful need to be self-righteously offended? Hard to say.

But really, it’s all about how the bitchez suck and if you really start to analyze it, how they don’t even qualify as real people. Really! The Voxster:

Whatever modicum of vague interest remained after that was destroyed when I heard that Starbuck had been given a sex change.

It would have been interesting if Dirk Benedict’s character had undergone a sex-change operation and started demanding that his fellow Galactites refer to him as “Starbuckina!” But sadly, no–what Vox means is, the character of “Starbuck” is a female character, which is really about the worst thing you can do to a character–change it from a male to a female. Why is that such a henious and hideous offense, though, you may ask..? Does the part involve the character being a sperm donor or writing his name in the snow without using his hands..?

Nah. But Vox doesn’t really say why it’s so offensive. He makes a few rather vague allusions to “realism,” though he fails to pinpoint exactly why a character being female instead of male is not realistic. (I feel “real,” and I’m, like, a chick–am I delusional? Anything’s possible, I suppose!) Maybe his lack of clarity was brought home to him in his comments thread, because he provided an update to the original article where he dragged a comment up from the muck to use as a clarification of the whole realism aspect:

Watching Kara Thrace knock out guys in the boxing ring and stand toe-to-toe with men twice her size, I realized its nothing but PC schlock.

I can’t really speak to any actual scene in the new Battlestar Galactica that the commenter above is referencing–I can’t say if it looks “realistic” or not. However, I’m trying to imagine it looking less realistic than, say, Sylvester Stallone kicking Dolph Lundgren’s ass in Rocky IV or Ralph Macchio becoming such a master of martial arts after a few months of washing Mr. Miyagi’s car that he can kick the ass of any number of dudes twice his size and with decades more unarmed combat training–aren’t cinematic fight scenes frequently exercises in suspension of disbelief? Or does the presence of Teh Penises on all of the actors sufficient to suspend ALL disbelief no matter how unrealistic the pugilistic comparison..? Teh Penis! because men use that when they engage in hand-to-hand combat…!

Yes, it’s gotten silly. And in case you didn’t think that has been clearly enough underlined, Vox underlines that his own self:

You know, given that a woman has never been known to knock out a man in several thousand years of pugilistic combat,

No woman has ever knocked a man out! Oh, that NEVER EVER HAPP–

Gosh, that took about three seconds of searching YouTube.

a dead giveaway that “she” was a robot

Ha ha, yeah! I think I’m done here.

Did anybody else follow this?

Tuesday, November 18th, 2008

This is Slate’s series of articles, structured as back-and-forth letters between a group of conservative “thinkers,” that began the day after Election Day and ran through the following Friday. I found it rather fascinating, in the dust mite sense.

Just in case you haven’t read it, and don’t have time to wade through all fourteen full-length pages of it, I have summarized the meat of each entry below:

Jim Manzi, chairman of an applied artificial-intelligence software company and contributing editor of National Review: It’s finally happened. The middle class has figured out that voting Republican is voting against their own economic interests. The Reagan mantra appears to be losing its hypnotic effect. We must find a new chant to bamboozle them with. Hey, I know–let’s resegregate public schools, start shooting illegal immigrants on sight and concentrate on recruiting the whitest foreign nationals we can find to fill our immigration quotas instead!

Douglas Kmiec, a professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine University: Barack Obama is Ronald Reagan reborn. Also, could we stop obsessing on abortion?

Ross Douthat, author of Grand New Party and a blogger for the Atlantic: No.

Christine Todd Whitman, former governor of New Jersey and author of It’s My Party, Too: I refuse to believe that the middle class figured that out. Issues, schmissues– to all those people the election was just a popularity contest! and Barack Obama, unfortunately, is much hotter than Bush. All we have to do is make sure they don’t associate Bush with us from now on.

Tucker Carlson, author and commentator for MSNBC and The Daily Beast: I agree that it’s all a popularity contest, Christine–it’s not enough to dissociate ourselves from him, though, we need to find somebody even cooler than Obama to be our frontman. Also, we need to give the middle class a new strawman to hate–that was so effective during the Cold War. Our efforts to replace “Communists” with “Islamofascists” appears to have lost a lot of its oomph.

Ross Douthat: ABORTION, hello?? Abortion!

Douglas Kmiec: Reagan was a god. I really think that Obama is his second coming.

Jim Manzi: You’re probably right, Christine; and Douglas, if you think a single damn one of us is going to do anything other than flatly oppose every last line of Obama’s liberal pinko agenda with our dying breaths, you’re quite mistaken.

Kathleen Parker, author and syndicated columnist who also blogs for the Washington Post: I agree with Christine too and I’ll go even further and say that the deciding popularity factor wasn’t even Bush’s lack of cool or Obama’s abundance of it, but McCain’s horrid, stupid, winking, redneck of a MILF vice-presidential candidate. And no, it’s not fucking elitist of me to say so!

Douglas Kmiec: Ross, Obama is my hero. And I’m pro-choice. Here, let me kiss your ass vigorously to make it up to you in the most passive-aggressive way possible.

Tucker Carlson: Doug, you sound like a woman, and there is no worse insult I could possibly lob at you than that.

Ross Douthat: Well, I loved Sarah Palin because she at least was willing to call out abortion for the baby-murdering slut-enabling conspiracy that it is. But I agree with Tucker that we need to find a man who can compete with Obama for sheer coolness, though I must say that I personally thought Bill Clinton was cooler. McCain? L-O-S-E-R!

Christine Todd Whitman: Maybe if I address this post to everybody, Ross won’t realize I’m speaking directly to him?–look, the abortion bullshit is no longer a winning strategy. The only people who can’t get over it are the Jesus freaks, and clearly, they’re not a majority voting bloc, so screw them. Back to the important topic here–how do we repackage Reaganomics so that the middle class will buy it all over again? Honestly, I’m just praying that the Democrats screw up so badly that every last one of the middle class ends up completely bankrupt. They’ll come running back to us then!

Douglas Kmiec: God, I miss Reagan. Have I said that already?

Oliver Twist – starring Ford, GM, and Chrysler

Wednesday, November 12th, 2008

You know who I won’t shed a single damn tear for? The electric-car-squashing American auto industry. These are the same people who buried their inexpensive, reliable plug-ins once it became clear people actually *wanted* them (and thus the reduced need for marked-up dealer maintenance that comes with dumping the fragile combustion engine).


But as with so many old-fogey corporate institutions right now, the automakers are in peril. And the Democrats want to help: