5 worst motherfuckers of 2009

this is wtf?. not happy happy joy joy. so don't expect a 5 best pussy eaters of 2009, although i'm considering it.

harry reid- do i even need to explain? how does this man stand upright without a spine? to this man, compromise means that liberals give up whatever conservatives want in order to pass a legal version of horseshit. to this man, joe lieberman is a legislative asset. that's horseshit, too. joe lieberman uses democrats to "legislate" the way rush limbaugh uses the 1st amendment to "pontificate".

sarah palin- conservatives claim that liberals hate her because she's proof that you can be a feminist and pretty and conservative. well, she's pretty and conservative. here's a clue for conservatives, who STILL don't know what feminism is: no feminist who chooses to give birth to a kid with down's syndrome would force any other woman to do the same; no feminist would ever even CONSIDER forcing the cost of rape kits to collect evidence of rape onto the rape victims; no feminist would ever support abstinence-only sex ed; and no feminist would shove her kids in front of cameras to show her "family" values and then complain about the media when it turns out her family makes the spears family look classy. next time you feel like telling us all you're a feminist and you care about women's equality, STFU. you don't know shit about feminism. you're just pretty and stupid and that's why conservatives love you. face it.

which gets into my next problem with her: she makes being stupid acceptable. it should never be acceptable to be that stupid and ignorant and badly spoken. we, as a nation, should have learned that over the last eight years of president shit-for-brains. it turns out, approximately 1/4 of the country didn't. here's a hint for conservatives: when you're candidate appeals to the people who couldn't figure out that george w. bush is an idiot, that's bad.

dick cheney- go the fuck away. we hated you when you were the vice president and we had to pretend to care what you think. now we're not even going to bother to do that. stop acting like you can possibly justify anything you did. you can't. it wasn't legal, it wasn't constitutional, and it wasn't for us or our benefit. it was for your own personal aggrandizement, and for the use of future republican presidents. and please, for all our sakes but especially for the sake of those who lost a loved one on september 11, 2001: please stop telling us how awesome it is that you kept us safe after september 11. that's like the germans telling us how safe air travel was after the hindenburg. september 11 isn't a freebie- it was a collossal failure to check on warnings that came all that year, while you were really the president.

bill donohue- this man makes me glad i'm not a catholic or a christian anymore, but especially a catholic. apparently, criticism of the catholic church's policies, misogyny, and rampant child abuse is some form of hate speech. this interview alone should have gotten him banned from any type of media, for life. anyone who can minimize the horrific abuse and shameful coverup that happened over decades in ireland should be shunned. or maybe punished along with the perpetrators.

glenn beck- you're crazy. perhaps you're schizophrenic, or bipolar, or have some narcissistic or personality disorder. i don't know. high school psychology class was a long time ago, and you're not coherent enough for me to figure out exactly what keeps you from grasping the difference between fantasy and reality. but you can't. and your conflict of interest in telling your mouth-breathing listeners to buy gold is pathetic. even opinionators are not supposed to have conflicts of interest, and a real news network would have fired your ass for it. i'm not asking you to shut up, because if you have tourettes that's impossible anyway. i'm just asking you to seek professional help, and possibly commit yourself before the people of new york city have to.

ah, good old freedom

yes, i know the public option is out. and i'm pissed about that. in fact, a post about obama weaseling his way out of the public option may be due. but john ensign just leaped into my face with his own nugget of dishonesty and stupidity, and i couldn't resist.

john ensign has decided that the government mandating citizens to buy health insurance is a violation of the of the 5th amendment. because it forces you to spend money you otherwise would have used to buy a big-screen tv on health insurance. ensign has also decided that: 1- the pursuit of happiness is in the constitution, which it's not; and 2- that mandating citizens buy health insurance somehow deprives them of the ability to pursue happiness. ensign has also decided that all americans have the freedom to not buy health insurance, and that this is what people in ww2 fought for.

okay, john, i'm going to explain it nice and slow so you can eventually get it. NOBODY wants to die of disease or injury. NOBODY with cancer wants the freedom to choose to either go broke surviving or die. NOBODY with a broken leg wants to choose to let it to heal deformed so they can't walk normally again but still have an Ipod. you're talking about, and passionately defending, a "freedom" that nobody wants. at least you say you are.

so what's the real freedom ensign is defending? he's not defending the freedom to choose between death or bankruptcy court. he's defending the freedom to NOT CARE that others must choose between death and bankruptcy court. he's defending your freedom to turn a blind eye to those who suffer chronic health problems or die. he's defending the freedom to feel nothing for them, or tell them to go to charities that don't exist, or that have run out of money. that's the freedom john ensign cares about.

the government is mandating the purchase of health insurance because uninsured & underinsured patients' inability to pay their bills is contributing to unnecessary bankruptcies. their inability to pay also forces hospitals to increase their fees for services, which is one of the reasons why health insurance premiums have skyrocketed. which will slowly bankrupt everyone. which is why reform includes a mandate to buy health insurance. it is sad that we've reached the point where those who had to choose between insurance and food have affected people who otherwise wouldn't care about the uninsured. we liberals sure are sorry that their desire to live despite their poverty has affected your insured asses. but we have reached this point, and we need a solution to this problem, and the republicans have only proposed a piece of dreck that insures fewer people, and leaves those with pre-existing conditions in hi-risk (read: hi cost) insurance plans that the bill doesn't even create and that won't even cover the pre-existing condition that requires them to buy the hi-cost insurance in the first place. so unless you have something that will actually be worth paying for, STFU.

Only 90 minutes left for blasphemy

Happy International Blasphemy Day! We have only 90 minutes left. I spend most of my time mocking Christianity, but this gem from Islam cannot be ignored: apparently, Hamas has decided that girls who haven't reached puberty are marriagable. Seriously. Man,not even the FLDS sinks this low.

So here's my IBD question- in Islam why is pedophilia good, and alcohol bad? And can I really expect anybody following this religion to be sane?

Happy IBD! Go out and insult someone's religion, before one of those crazy believers makes it illegal!

maybe i don't want to seem nicer

some genius named nathan named his blog after a guy stupid enough to fall asleep on a window ledge and fall out to the street below. this makes nathan's blog worth reading for a reason that must occur only to christians. and nathan has decided he knows just how to make atheists seem nicer. because if there's one group of people whose opinions matter to me, it's the christians. oh wait, i meant the hell's angels.

nathan's first idea is that atheists need to stop feeling smug. i guess nathan doesn't like the condescending way we atheists roll our eyes at yet another recital of pascal's wager, or the first cause "argument". that eye-roll might have something to do with the fact that these arguments have been refuted, repeatedly and long ago. why should we pretend to care about bad re-runs?

i'll tell you what nathan- watch the south park episode where they explain what scientologists believe. and then tell me what our attitude should be with the people who actually believe it. then, make yourself, as a courtesy, sit with one of those weirdos at the times square subway station and get a stress test, and force yourself to listen to how the thetans are causing your problems, and what scientology's "evidence" is of this. do not tell me, with any expectation of being believed, that you don't feel the slightest bit smug about not having been hoodwinked into believing into some dreck l. ron hubbard dreamed up and sells in the mass market paperback section. and remember: one woman's dreck is another's "faith". try not to roll your eyes at the poor soul.

oh, and apply this to wicca, mormonism, and your smug knowledge that of course zeus and athena are false gods.

then, nathan wants us atheists to ignore christians' proselytizing, because they're not really trying to convert us anyway, just the people who haven't made up their minds. nathan, here's a fucking clue (christ, am i smug): we want to reach out to the people who haven't made up their minds too. we just do it by summarizing the "arguments" for the existence of a deity and refuting them. we also point out various contradictions in your "book", as well as the contradictions between the different things christians tend to believe about their deity. so, we have to address you whether you want us to or not. i know, your jobs are much easier when we don't . which is probably why you think it would make us seem nicer if we just let you spout gobbledy-gook with no rational, evidence-based response. it's like a football team's offensive squad demanding the other side not bother to defend their goal. i wonder what the ref would say?

nathan, dear, can intelligent and rational people believe in magic? and tolkien's elves? and tolkien's hobbits? can intelligent people there really was a cinderella, and spend their lives looking for that glass slipper? because that's all communicated by books too. your "book" is a collection of stories never meant to be taken literally as things that actually happened. it was people trying to forge a cultural heritage with a story of shared struggle and sacrifice. cute story, especially is you like killing innocent, firstborn children on behalf of the good guys. the god "communicating" through that book is a manipulative, vengeful, petty, jealous, bloodthirsty asshole who apparently has no problem planning our sins and then punishing us for them. and in order to forgive the humans whose sins he planned and plans to watch, he sent his "son" to earth to lead a blameless, sinless life. after this blameless, sinless life, this god then has the son's friends betray and abandon him, and then has the authorities of the patch of dirt the son lived and preached around force this son through the most excruciating, tortuous death humankind has ever devised (except, of course, suicide from watching general hospital). this horrific death then makes it possible for this god to forgive humans' sins. you call this intervention? here's a clue: this all-powerful god could have decided to just forgive people, but didn't. how do you rationally, intelligently explain why the tortuous death of someone who supposedly was himself perfect makes it possible for an all-powerful deity to forgive people for shoplifting? what was this god's thought process? what's rational and intelligent (not to mention ethical) about any of this crap?

i know you hear this all time, but where was this intervention during the holocaust? why does a just god let this happen, to his chosen people no less? i notice that this god lets alot of shit happen that just wipes out hundreds of thousands of people with one big wave. why intervene for the ancient hebrews leaving egypt, and not for people on the hijacked planes on 9/11? how does this god pick his interventions? i notice most of them happened in this "book", with parts dating back 4,000 years ago, with these last interventions happening about 1,900 years ago. why no interventions now?

nathan, do you read what you type before posting? do you know that a hypothesis is based on a series of observable facts? oh, i visited all these islands in the pacific ocean and found species are similar to each other and yet still different species. and i found that each one is perfectly well suited to that particular island's environment. and other people have found fossilized skeletons of animals that no one sees anymore. why would some species die out, and some survive- and does the environment have anything to do with that? i guess i could come up with a theory that explained how attributes that make a species better suited to a particular environment make it easier to survive, and pass on offspring with those attributes. and over time, attributes that are not good for an environment cause those living things to die without offspring. i guess i could test the theory by examining other environments, and observing whether species are suited to those. and i guess scientists in later generations could find even more fossils, and figure out how to date the fossils and the rocks the fossils are in, and then i guess some future scientists could also examine genes to see how closely related different species are.

oh, i noticed that people who get cowpox don't get small pox. why is that? i guess, maybe, the cowpox is not as strong as small pox, but getting it makes your body somehow better at resisting smallpox. maybe i could convince a few brave souls to be injected with pus from cowpox blisters, and see if they too resist small pox. but that would be a combination of induction and deduction, and the christians have decided that that can't be the scientific method. guess i won't bother.

get it, nathan? someone sees observable facts without an explanation, then makes an explanation. this explanation (called a theory) is then tested by experimenting and collecting additional observed facts. this theory is used as an explanation for facts until some new, observed facts no longer support the theory. then a new explanation is thought of, or the original theory is revised, and this new explanation is tested. see? in the scientific method, no one is required to except a theory without experimental data to support the theory. this enables human beings to understand how the world operates with the best knowledge we have at the time. which is a fuck of a lot better than trying to figure out how to make the sun stop in the sky.

however, you are correct about one thing: science is easy to abuse. just tell people that it's a belief system that atheists have "faith" in, tell people that the dinosaurs lived with people in the garden of eden, and put a saddle on a triceratops. but please note, it tends to be your fellow christians who do the abusing. i guess, to reach the undecideds.

which leads me to nathan's last pearl of wisdom. millions of people claim to be mormons, and therefore christians. can i judge christianity by these millions? what about the christians following sun myung moon? might not be in the millions, but a lot of people anyway. which millions of christians should i judge the religion by? the ones who want to go back to forced pregnancy and childbirth? which sect got it right? i just want to know- who are the real christians, who are the fakes, and who gets to decide who is what? are you the decider? am i? is the pope? how 'bout pat robertson?

and what is the christological narrative? four conflicting accounts? is the part about jesus coming back to israel to give the jews one last chance to accept him a part of the christological narrative? is jesus appearing in north america part of the christological narrative? exactly how broad is this broad narrative? and who decides how broad it is? me? you? the pope? jim wallis? mitt romney? sun myung moon?

as for quoting old testament law: i'll make a deal with you: when conservative christians stop telling me that homosexuality is considered an abomination in leviticus, and that some prophet in the old testament told us god knows us in the womb and therefore abortion is murder, i'll stop with the shit about not eating shellfish and mixing fabrics. oh, and we can see how the laws were supposed to work- the punishment is usually right there in the text, and it usually involved throwing rocks at offenders until the offenders were dead. i'm sure the christians who you consider intelligent and rational because they just happen to believe the exact form of christianity you do are cool with this.

it's time. okay, it's been time for a while

the right are not decent human beings. we on the left have been saying this privately for years. but nobody wants to blurt it out in public, except people who are never going to interview john mccain anyway. anyone who wants to get invited to speak on news and commentary tv shows have been unwilling to say this openly, because the tv talking heads all agree that to impugn someone's patriotism is wrong. except for people opposing illegal wars, or illegal torture, or unconstitutional detention. anytime you oppose something that is actually illegal or unconstitutional, well, that means you hate america. but i digress.

discussing the sad reality that basic human decency has fled america's right is currently limited to the blogosphere. this idea that right wingers want social justice and tolerance and peace, but just want to pursue those goals with unrestrained greed, theocracy, and unjust wars, is what most public, "respectable" figures must declare. but the time has come for public figures to publicly admit that the right wing of america could give a shit about social justice. america's right doesn't care if illegal aliens bleed to death right outside hospitals- in fact, america's right would enjoy the sight. america's right doesn't care about tolerance, and we know this because they never extend it to anyone but themselves. non-christian religions, non-white people, non-profit projects, receive nothing but scorn from them and will never receive anything else. and peace? has anyone listened to the right? with the exception of ron paul, the right has a long list of people they're dying to bomb, and they'll even sing the list to an old beach boys tune for ya.




and then there is the biggest delusion of all. the idea of republicans actually knowing what the fuck they're spewing about. spare me. these are people who shrugged, if even that, at the cost of our invasions of aghganistan and iraq. these are people who still wanted george bush's welfare to the rich in the form of tax cuts at a time when we "had" to fight those wars. these are people who supported the creation of a whole new department of the federal government and accompanying cabinet position (homeland insecurity, i think). these are people who supported the nsa listening to our phone calls, reading our emails, finding out what library books we've borrowed, and demanded that anyone who participated in this rape of our privacy be pardoned in advance. these are people who supported treating foreigners, many of who were innocent, worse than michael vick treated his dogs. these are people who thought locking someone up indefinitely (read: for life) on the president's say-so alone was a great way to preserve freedom. these are people who thought shocking and awing middle easterners into accepting foreign military occupation was requested by god. these are people who's idea of christian charity means that there is no amount of kicking someone when they're already down they won't tolerate. and they have the nerve to act like they care about the deficit now. and freedom. and government interference in people's private lives. and the religious beliefs of the president. and anything except their own pathetic, paranoid delusions.


because that is what the right in america has become. one big delusional cult. a cult that believes that obama is a muslim. and muslims are taking over (that's why obama's the president, so he can hand the country over to them). and obama is a racist, and so is jeremiah wright. and black people are racist. and obama is a communist, socialist and a fascist (you have to ignore the wars they fought against each other in spain and germany and russia, but oh well). and a bailout that we are supposed to get paid back to us, with interest, from the banks is going to bankrupt us. and that open season has been declared on gun owners, taylor swift, and white kids who ride the bus. and that the country is going to fail unless obama does. and that government bureaucrats will decide if anyone over 65 gets to live or not, based on whether or not they've read karl marx. and that global warming is a hoax to destroy the SUV market, and turn us into soviet russia (where i guess people lived in trees and were strict vegetarians). delusion after delusion after delusion. no matter how many times these delusions are argued against with facts and reason and some logical induction and deduction, the delusions continue.

there is a solution to this. we, as a nation, must start calling the right what they are. in public, on tv, on the internet, on op-ed pages, at family reunions, and at birthday parties. the right are lying, scheming, delusional, greedy, bigotted, sexist, theocratic douchebags. and they have been for a while. and we must freeze them out of the public realm. because there is only so much political discourse that anyone can have with a dining room table.

you can call yourself chewbacca, but that doesn't make you a wookie

regarding this asshat:

why the fuck are we supposed to be against eugenics? can't we do anything to flush these dipshits out of the gene pool?

thanks, joe

mr. wilson:

i would like to thank you on behalf of the democratic party for your outburst wednesday night. nothing expresses just how republicans think and the content of their characters better than your bullshit catcalling. neither you nor any of your "colleagues" have produced evidence that health insurance reform would actually provide coverage of illegal aliens, and the charge has been debunked by non-partisan factcheck.org. but you still feel the need to express outrage based on ignorance, and in the most inappropriate way possible. what better example of how your party operates, what it values, and just how much respect you have for your fellow americans than last night.

you know, when code pink interrupts a congressional hearing with anti-war slogans, they get escorted out. where was the capitol police when we needed them? your outburst has taken the question "do we really need republicans in our discourse?" and put it center stage, where it belongs. even during the worst of the bush administration, democratic elected leaders had the decency to shut up and let bush finish hanging himself. you couldn't even let a man speak the truth. way to show us what you're made of.

regards,

culuriel

It's only socialized insurance if OTHER people have it

A few things regarding this incident:
1- No finger biting!!!! Why was this the appropriate response to getting hit in the face?!?!?! Turn yourself in and face the music. You have at least one witness that it was provoked, which will get you a lighter sentence.
2- If you don't want to get your finger bitten, don't start a fight. Seriously, I'm supposed to feel sorry for this guy? He wanted a fight. He got one. He can come and kiss my cellulite-y ass if he wants sympathy.
3- I guess it's a good thing Bill Rice has government run and subsidized health insurance. He could go right to the hospital and get treated without worrying about paying. It never occurs to Bill that maybe other people should be able to get this great insurance, too. But letting others have access to the sweet deal you get yourself by the great virtue of living to 65 is socialism. It's always perfectly reasonable when YOU get the government services, and it's always socialism when SOMEBODY ELSE does. Remember that, boys and girls.

all about me

the last 2-1/2 months have been shitty. just plain shitty. a job that i thought would get me through these times has turned out to be a madhouse that i will get out of on august 11. there is a laundry list of things wrong with this "office", so i will describe it like this: unemployment is better. the shittiness of the this "office" has made my after-work life sucked dry of human enjoyment. the shittiness of the people running this "office" has ruined me for working for anyone else who thinks they're full of bright ideas. the shittiness of this place has taught me that "we do things differently here" really means, "we're too cheap to do things the right way- let's cheat." i might not even get my last paycheck from these fuckers.

so what is there to do? leave, and hope that a three-month stint somewhere doesn't look too goofy on my resume. leave, and study for a license that may or may not get me a better job. leave, and enjoy what's left of my summer. leave, and catch up on my podcasts.

thoughts on whether it's torture

i've been hearing some references from rightwing nutjobs that the cia's use of violence isn't torture because we had medical professionals supervise it. well, isn't the cia sweet. here's a clue: if you need a doctor around to make sure the suspect doesn't die from what you're doing to him, it's torture. if you need a shrink around to make sure you're not inflictng lifelong trauma on your suspect, it's torture.
and i'm tired of hearing how releasing the photos will degrade any self-control the muslims have. somehow, we all survived the release of the abu ghraib photos. so here's my last clue: if people finding out about this will lead to mass demonstrations and sporadic violence at symbols of the abusers, it's torture. please stop fucking with us all.

tortured logic

i know, it's a cliche. but it fits so well, and i don't have all day to come up with another title.

so now rush limbaugh cares about women breaking the glass ceiling. it says something, and not complimentary, that republicans care more about whether nancy pelosi knew anything about torture then the fact that the bush administration approved of and practiced it. if waterboarding and slamming people into walls and cuffing people into painful, harmful positions is okey-dokey, then who cares what she knew and when? it only matters if what the cia did was illegal, unamerican and flat out shitty. and it was.

so what should nancy pelosi have done? let's go through her options, or i should say lack of them. house members are required to take an oath not to release classified information that they gain in the course of their house of representatives duties- we've had it since the 104th congress. and peter hoekstra, a republican representative, actually called for more stringent legal secrecy requirements. and apparently, the same administration torturing people hated leaks of classified information from congress. remember, these assholes never regret committing the crime; they are always incensed by the exposure of their crime. so nancy pelosi can't tell anybody anything.

so could she have stopped it? please, girlfriend. don't waste my time. what authority does nancy pelosi have to stop this? it's already illegal through the convention against torture, which ronald reagan signed and the u.s. senate ratified. so the bush administration is willing to do something that anybody with any passing knowledge of the convention against torture must know is illegal. what law was nancy pelosi going to pass that she could expect the bush administration to care about? so let's say she goes to the bush administration, secretly, and tells them it's illegal. well, that's what yoo's & bybee's memoes were for! i'm sure the bush adminstraton loved shoving those across the table for nancy to read, as a sort of "we checked with lawyers that already agreed with us- and they told us we are right! isn't that great?" i suppose nancy could have gotten her own lawyers to write legal opinions pointing out what the law actually is. but how can she get other lawyers to declare illegal techniques she's not supposed to tell those lawyers about? and that is ostensibly what john yoo and jay bybee are supposed to be able to do. i don't know anyone who could say the bush administration would have acted differently if the house minority leader, who they think is a commie terrorist sympathizer anyway, told them to stop (rememer, she became speaker in 2007, and was still bound to secrecy by her oath). if nancy had stalked into the oval office and denounced these techniques, george would have just chuckled at her and dick cheney would have stuffed her in his man-sized safe. let's face facts: the bush administration didn't care if torture: 1- is illegal or 2-is illegal even when john yoo and jay bybee say it's legal or 3- is illegal even if it's nancy pelosi saying it's illegal. if you think differently, what the fuck closet do you live in?

so let's get this straight- nancy pelosi can't tell anyone about the torture without fear of prosecution. since whistleblower protection isn't what it used to be, this is a serious consideration. and she can't do anything, since the bush administration is blithely pretending this is all legal no matter what she thinks anyway. and she's responsible? are republicans trying to torture us too?

and now for the photos. i love how all of a sudden we give a shit about what the muslims will think of what we've done. i wonder if john yoo and jay bybee, in their infinite wisdom, could have seen this coming. i wonder if maybe it ocurred to them that people's outrage over doing these things might indicate it's torture, and since torture's illegal, they've got to rule it out. and i wonder why we get to (outrage people) torture, but muslims can't touch a hair on our heads? perhaps, in the future, yoo and bybee can worry about what exposure of the government's crimes will bring before the government commits the crime. i don't see how you can blame nancy pelosi when it was dick cheney who couldn't be bothered to do that.

the right wingers' lord's prayer

in belated honor on the national day of prayer, which i will celebrate at about the time i get around to giving up my stuffed bunny.

our father, who art 100% straight,
american be thy birth certificate.
thy supreme court justice come,
limbaugh’s will be done,
in new york as well as san francisco.
let us take this day our service workers’ daily bread,
and forget that we trespassed, but let us bomb others for imagined trespasses.
and lead us not into socialized medicine,
but deliver us from michael moore.
for thine is the legislative, executive and judicial branches for as long as republicans can get the votes,
dittos.

mirror mirror on the wall

wow, does camille paglia suck. queen of the overgeneralization, lover of her own experience to the exclusion of all others', translator of others' rejections into theory. all knowledge, or at least that which isn't pointy-headed elitism, just happens to be whatever camille knows, or at least finds entertaining. how dare liberals object to criticism of themselves- especially when it's based on camy's personal surface impressions. don't liberals know their job is to sit down and shut up and let every superficial remark about barack obama go? no, i won't link to her "column". it's on salon premium anyway, and i'm sorry i even read it. don't make the same mistake i did.

this is the woman who doesn't accept that humans cause global warming because there's no way we could have that much effect on something as enormous and constantly changing as the earth. this is someone who takes getting twitted for liking the rolling stones as some sort of statement about feminism. this is someone who doesn't understand that sometime working-class people grow up to be really liberal, and not just claim to be. this woman somehow also has completely missed the long line of religious liberals, such as nancy pelosi, jim wallis, michael moore, cory booker, blah blah blah. and she liked titanic. really liked it.

camille paglia, like most conservatives, is stuck in the late 60s and 70s, when academia had a few examples of what paglia claims liberalism is now, completely. in one column, she double-handedly (she had help from "letter writers") decided that hating religion was the defining movement of liberalism (well, i do, but i'm in a minority of even liberals); obama was disappointing for diplomatic gaffes (some of them non-existent, none of them actually insulting, and none of them involving vomiting); conservatives veer toward facts and not emotion and play fair (does she even read glenn greenwald's stuff? he's a fellow salon, blogger, so she probably wouldn't have to pay), while liberals just leap on anyone who disagrees with them; and that the lessons of her working class background negate the lessons of any other liberal's (i'm using that term loosely with her) working-class background.

according to camy, sarah palin was real, which apparently washes out the facts that she was also stupid, lacked any connection to reality, and had no professional ethics. in camy-world, liberals can't poke fun at themselves (except john stewart and stephanie miller and cenk ungur and i could go on), the media cleverly covers up a murder in a gay, gay townhouse by putting it on the front page. in the gospel according to camy, you can be a feminist and accuse any woman who has aborted a fetus of murder. and the tripe! i have no idea what "all gods exist- because thinking it makes it so" means, but i know of no other atheist who would say something so silly.

because that is what camy page does- she says something so based on surface, subjective impressions, and has no compunction to do routine fact-checking. instead of doing any research on liberal talk radio and where it's going, it's so much easier and makes her look so much smarter to spew out some weird-ass generalization that stephanie miller and randi rhodes could just shove back in her mouth. it's also alot of time to research how increased corporate ownership and reduced diversity of ownership has pushed liberal talk radio out of markets, even when they were doing well. it would require camy to talk to researchers, who might act as if their experience and data trump whatever erudite concepts are bouncing around camy's head.

it's always more important to camy to look like she's an independent thinker rather than actually dig up some fucking facts and base her opinions on them. it's so great to note that moms homeschooling their kids seem feisty and super-organized, and not trouble oneself to ask what they're actually teaching their kids, and whether it's based on actual research or study materials from bob jones "university". it's more fun to act like an atheist who can't understand why atheists would flock to the only major political party that even gives them a voice, and a marginalized one at that. really, camy, you can't understand why atheists tend to be liberal- could it be the conservative disdain for the establishment clause of the first amendment? why don't you show some independent thinking by claiming it's orgies at the democratic national convention. that at least would entertain.

yeah, camy, their are some major fruitcakes out there, and somehow salon.com hires one once in a while. i'll end by linking to something worth reading. if we lived in a just universe, camy would have died of cancer, and molly ivins would still be with us.

just who the fuck voted for her, anyway?!?!?!?!?!?!

the fact that michelle bachmann needs an extra "n" at the end of her last name should tell you everything you need to know. okay, i exaggerate. this should tell you everything you need to know about michelle bachmann. she is bugfuck, apeshit insane. she uses already discarded pieces of legislation to argue that stalin is in the building. and the discarded pieces? they didn't even call for what she said they did.

here's what the new serve america act does do: it gives federal funding status to a slew of already existing community service programs (or new ones some goddamned do-gooder dreams up), and also awards increased pell grants for anyone who completes these programs that can be used to pay for college or student loans. it also reinforces rules about what programs do and don't qualify. basically, any program that engages in politics, supports a for-profit company or union, or is religious instruction does not qualify. if you're program is receiving funds under this bill, it can't have any of those goals, and the volunteers can't do any of those things while they're supposed to be doing community service. last, it sets rules for school districts that would like funding as a "youth engagement zone": at least 90% of students must be in a service program, and the high school has to have some "service learning" as a part of the mandatory curriculum. did we save the statue of vladimir lenin? i think we're gonna need it.

it does not stipulate that you can't attend church, work for a union, or tell mccain supporters he fathered a black baby. you just have to do those things on your own fucking time. maybe the problem bachmann has with the bill is that the people in her district don't have any of their own time anymore, what with all their foreclosures. or maybe she thinks that if public schools taught kids to give a shit about someone else for a change, they might not demand tax cuts when they're voting age. why is it that actually teaching americans to care about other americans has mixed republican support, but just about full democratic support? doesn't that say something about how different the parties are, ralph?

and here's what michelle rails about the most- the stuff that got yanked! the bill, originally, would have just looked into whether making some form of community service for young adults mandatory would improve the country. the original version also would have required the government "look into" (read: we'll get back to you when jfk's assassination reports are declassified) creating a 4-year, college-level institution for educating people for public sector jobs. the fact that we would even talk about requiring kids to give a shit about something besides the coolness of their own sneakers (i'm sorry, athletic shoes) and what color their ipods should be is a sign that castro's mind-control experiment has finally succeeded.

why is it that every single action by a government that aims to make this a better place to live is some sort of communist plot? whether it's flouride in the water, social security, the minimum wage, and now some additional government support for teaching young people the value of actually giving a shit. why is banning smoking from public places some sort of outrage? i don't see a right to tobacco anywhere in the constitution. i don't see a right to demand every single dollar your boss paid you in dollars that only have value because the government says so in the fucking bill of rights. but then again, i'm one of those pointy-headed intellectuals whose actually bothered to read the damn thing.

shut the fuck up about your fucking bonuses

disclosure: i got laid off on february 27, 2009. i was shocked. the operations manager was very sad, and the partner in charge of my department was sad, and the department director was very sad. i was a good employee, founded our company's sustainability team, trained employees in sustainability, was promoted, was working towards something. everyone was very clear that i had done nothing wrong, didn't deserve to be laid off, but "salaries had to brought in-line with billing". and someone making $75k when it's not all billable hours is going to be pushed out of the lifeboat eventually.

but the horsefuckers who brought AIG down? they're supposed to get bonuses. that means they got to keep their jobs. these people literally brought down the world's largest insurance company and the world's financial systems with it, AND THEY'RE STILL EMPLOYED. and getting bonuses. because their contracts say so.

the UAW had a contract with the car companies, but i seem to remember that being recently renegotiated for the sake of people keeping their jobs. people who built the cars they were told to, and did their jobs. THEY had to renegotiate their contracts to keep their jobs. but the mother-pimpers at AIG? well, renegotiating a contract is out of the question. in fact, to hear larry (you think CHICKS can't do math?) summers tell it, actually forcing these fuckers to renegotiate these contracts that award these asscracks bonuses for failing might bring down the rule of law.

so let me explain this to these fucking pathetic excuses for human scum. the only reason you're still employed is so you can clean up the mess you made. that's it. that's your only use. and when you're done cleaning up the catastrofuck you helped created, your ass is going to be canned. either AIG will say so long, fuckers, or people will show up at your office with pitchforks and torches. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT YOUR FUCKING BONUSES. you should be working for free right now, and constantly begging the rest of us (you know, the little people whose 401ks and IRAs you destroyed) for our forgiveness. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT YOUR FUCKING BONUSES. the only thing you've earned is a one-way ticket to the Sahara Desert. you didn't even care about the welfare of the company you worked for. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT YOUR BONUSES. other people are worried about keeping a roof above their heads since they don't have jobs. other people are moving in with their parents. other people can no longer see a doctor since they don't have jobs and can't afford COBRA. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT YOUR BONUSES. going without millions of dollars you didn't earn isn't socialism. it's just desserts.

please, let the door hit your ass on the way out

doghouse riley has been doing this more than amazing retrospective of the "bush" "administration", and its "governance". i wish i could surpass this. i wish i could express my searing hatred of this "man" and all the shit he has covered this nation in as well as doghouse riley does. hell, i wish i could tell stories about lawn care as well as doghouse does.

and to chris matthews: i'm not disagreeing with you- but i saw all this in 2000, and in 2001 (even on september 12), and in 2002, especially in 2003, and so on. did i have access to information about him that you didn't? is there some reason you decided to become blinded by his manly landing on aircraft carrier, while some of us perceived that this photo op was the whole reason bush decided we should invade iraq? were his jokes on the 2000 campaign plane so fucking hysterical that you felt guilty criticizing him until fucking 2008? when it's too late to even impeach him. finally growing a pair mid-2008 doesn't excuse castrating yourself for 7-1/2 years, asshat.

and to all of you dipshits who voted for this dirty, motherfucking whore to polluters, warmongers, defence contractors, dishonest foreigners, anti-woman zealots, theocrats, cronies, and anybody else who sucks and fucks others over; to all of you who voted for him in 2000 or especially in 2004- are you happy? wtf is wrong with you? how could you look around, even way back in 2004, and think we were doin' okay, or even a heckuva job? did you really need the federal government forcing terri schiavo to keep breathing and destruction in yet another major american city to start giving a shit? question the guy? wonder if maybe brains might just be a minor qualification for the fucking job? shut the fuck up about history judging him- what you really mean is that george w bush will only look like a good president when the people who actually remember him are dead.

in praise of partisanship

jack, i love you. i really do. but why the fuck do you want our nation's two parties to work together? exactly what have democrats gotten for cooperating with republicans? remember the almost fucking unaminous vote to invade afghanistan? remember no child left behind? remember fucking invading iraq? remember medicare prescription benefits? remember the goddamned patriot act? remember its reauthorization? remember giving amnesty to telecoms that helped bush break the motherfucking fourth amendment? remember yanking habeus corpus with the military commissions act? remember allowing torture with the same goddamned bill? remember continually reauthorizing money to fund the occupation of iraq? remember when pelosi said impeachment was off the table? what HAVEN'T the democrats not handed to republicans on a fucking platter in the desperate, self-loathing quest to get republicans' respect? the only thing the democrats really managed to kill during the last eight years was privatizing social security. oh, and some really fucked up rightwing nutjobs didn't get federal judgeships (didn't bother republicans when they did it to clinton's nominees, i might add). can you name anything else? can you name ANYTHING else that democrats howled and screamed NO! to, and republicans backed down? well?!?!?!?!?

yes, i voted for obama. yes, i hope he can really "reach across" that aisle. but what are republicans going to offer him? what do republicans ever give in return? they don't fully fund education deform, they could give a fuck about congressional oversight of the powers in the patriot act. they give nothing in return but false promises and their repeated contempt. everything democrats gave into during bush's term has turned to shit. so fuck working with republicans. it's time for them to shut up- we tried their ideas, and their ideas are shit. so democrats don't want to deal them anymore. boo fucking hoo. cry me a goddamned river.