I heard an interesting story this morning on NPR about an upcoming documentary called “Hot Coffee.” It documents the facts surrounding a certain “frivolous lawsuit” that I’m sure we’re all familiar with. I’m sure you “know” what I’m talking about: Some lady was driving along, spilled her coffee, got some burns, sued McDonalds and was awarded Millions in a case of “jackpot justice.” There’s only one problem with that:
IT’S ALL BULLSHIT
Some of the FACTS about the case include:
1) She was, in fact, a PASSENGER in a PARKED car.
2) She received THIRD DEGREE BURNS. (Would you put something in your mouth hot enough to cause third degree burns to your LEGS?!)
3) McDonald's required franchises to serve coffee at 180 °F, which can cause a third-degree burn in under seven seconds.
4) From 1982 to 1992 the McDonald's had received over 700 reports of people burned by thier coffee, and had settled claims for more than $500,000. (Remember: A big part of tort is that you (a) KNOW about the problem, and (b) DO NOTHING to fix it. This is TEXTBOOK, people!)
5) She was incapacitated and underwent medical treatment for TWO YEARS.
6) In the end, she did not see MILLIONS of dollars - less than $600,000 actually, roughly $160,000 of which was just her own medical expense.
And the following is a FACT, but one who’s importance and relevance is a matter of DEBATE; one for the COURT to decide. (And thus: NOT a point of frivolity):
7) [McDonald’s] handed someone a liquid, that they prepared to a temperature that was hot enough to cause 3rd degree burns, in a container that was not strong enough, or with a lid steady enough, to contain it – the properties of which were specified by McDonalds. Think about that. Would YOU do that?! Not to someone you LIKED! (And remember: Better cup = More $$$!)
Now... I’m going to go out on a limb here, because I haven’t seen the film yet, and recommend that EVERYONE see this. And that you tell your friends about it. Because it brings up broader points about our society, and its system of justice, or the lack thereof. Let me ask you a question…
WHY does “everyone know” so much about this case that is complete bullshit? Why is everyone such an “expert” on this case despite mostly not knowing shit, and going almost entirely on misinformation?
Well… Do you remember that LIBERAL MEDIA we always hear about?
They’re the ones that origionally TOLD THE STORY. They're the one we were getting our fakts (not facts) from. Sure, they didn’t come right out and SAY it was a “frivolous law suit.” But the fakts presented were done so entirely from McDonald’s point of view.
Hmmmmm….
Do you think that MIGHT have anything to do with the fact that for most of the past half-century, McDonalds was not only one of the largest corporations in the United States, but also one of the single largest sources of TELEVISION ADVIRTISING REVENUE? Think back to when you were a kid. How many times did you see Ronald McDonald on TV? (Mayor McCheese was always my favorite!) But hey: I’m sure the news media wasn’t being biased in their presentation of this story just because the it cast on of their corporate shareholder’s largest sources of income in a bad light. Don’t you agree?
Behold: Your LIBERAL media!
And this was almost a SIXTEEN YEARS AGO! This was 1994!
Do you know what DIDN’T exist in 1994?
The Fox News Channel, the Tea Party, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, President George W. Bush, a Republican Majority in the House, Glenn Beck’s radio program, Sean Hannity’s radio program, Ann Coulter’s bi-weekly column…
Yeah, I’m sure that our media hasn’t leaned any farther to the Right since 1994!
The bigger picture here is that when we complain about these so-called “frivolous lawsuits,” we are in fact promoting corporatism, taking the corporation’s side and voluntarily, even enthusiastically sacrificing our rights. Try reading the fine print on your phone bill or credit card statement some time. Do you see that little bit about “binding arbitration?” Do you know what this means?
It means that if you have any dispute with that company, you agree to binding arbitration where:
1) They pick the venue for the court.
2) They pick the judge.
3) They PAY for the judge.
4) The Judge is not required to provide ANY rational for his ruling. (!!!)
5) YOU HAVE NO RECOURSE OR RIGHT TO APPEAL.
And we sign more and more of this kind of fascist bullshit EVERY SINGLE DAY.
But hey, why should we complain? I mean: It’s not like you HAVE to have a cell phone. Or a credit card.
…or access to the internet.
…or the ability to buy a plane ticket.
…or the ability to rent a car.
…or the ability to build a credit history.
Yeah. That seems like a reasonable trade off: They make a profit. I have no power if they screw me. (Which, of course, NEVER HAPPENS!) And if I exercise my rights to OPT-OUT of having my rights taken away from me…?
I LOSE THAT MANY MORE OF MY RIGHTS!
And there is simply NO GOOD REASON we need to make that tradeoff!
It time to WAKE UP, America! The next time the media tells you about a “frivolous law suit?” Check to see if it’s against one of their sponsors. Whether or not it’s frivolous is a matter for the COURTS TO DECIDE. And plenty of these just get thrown out. Every day. It is not a matter for the media to decide and to use to influence public opinion on Tort Reform…
…which is just another Right Wing Code Word for taking away more of your rights as people in the name of protecting Corporations from having to PLAY BY THE RULES and OBEY THE LAW.
And remember, WHERE did I hear about this? On NPR: A PUBLIC station that does not rely on corporate sponsorship! Think about THAT the next time some Jack-Hole sends you another Right-Wing e-mail that begins, “Here’s a story the cowards in the main-stream media won’t tell you!” The only stories left untold are the ones the corporate owners and corporate sponsors don’t want you hear, or form your own opinion about.
So here’s a new rule: THERE’S NO SUCH THING AS A FRIVOLOUS LAW SUIT.
Such judgments are entirely matters for the COURT to decide for themselves.
WHICH IS WHY WE FUCKING HAVE THEM!!!
Who IS this guy?!
Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017, and has returned for 2021! Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monday, June 27, 2011
Friday, June 17, 2011
So I was reading Cracked earlier and I saw this ad (just an ad, not one of Cracked's things):
![]()
And so I clicked it (as you should ALWAYS do when some bullshit ad pops up on a site you like, thereby taking say... some crack-pot's money and redistributing it to a common-sense blogger.) (Hint, hint.) And the ad linked this THIS SITE. I just perusde it, I didn't read much of it, and I couldn't help but wonder...
WHERE THE HELL WERE THESE PEOPLE WHEN THE PATRIOT ACT WAS BEING "DEBATED"?
WHERE THE HELL WERE THESE PEOPLE WHEN BUSH WAS DEFENDING WARRANTLESS WIRE-TAPS?!
Now... BELIEVE ME... I'm as disappointed as the next guy (probably ClassicLiberal) that President Obama did not immediately, and has not yet, disabled and dismantled all of these illegal Bush-Era practices. (Like the MURDER LIST? Yeah... Come on Barry, WTF RU waiting for?!)
And I, like many Liberals, am certainly not above critical discussion of President Obama. But I cannot STAND it when he's criticised for continuing Bush-era policies by the same RW Fools that HEER-LEAD the SAME POLICIES when Bush was in office, while REAL Civil Libertarians were voicing their concerns and were ridiculed BY THESE SAME PEOPLE for it!
The list of hypocrisy and projection on the part oft he Right grows and grows, and this is actually two more examples in one: First - They complain Obama doing what Bush did... And criticised us fro complaining about it under Bush! Second - They keep saying we don't criticize Obama. That he's our "Messiah" or that anyone who criticise him will be called a racist. Um... No. That's a lot of shit that the Right just MADE UP. And it's obvious from how these things always play out, that THEY are the ones who can't stand to see their leaders criticized.
How much more obvious can that be when the criticize Obama for doing the very things THEY INVENTED?!
Oh yeah... And speaking of Cracked, here's another great article. There "liberal bias" (read penchant for living in reality) is less subtle with this one. The article's great, and some of the comments are even better. (Look for mine: 'EddieCabot'!)
WHERE THE HELL WERE THESE PEOPLE WHEN THE PATRIOT ACT WAS BEING "DEBATED"?
WHERE THE HELL WERE THESE PEOPLE WHEN BUSH WAS DEFENDING WARRANTLESS WIRE-TAPS?!
Now... BELIEVE ME... I'm as disappointed as the next guy (probably ClassicLiberal) that President Obama did not immediately, and has not yet, disabled and dismantled all of these illegal Bush-Era practices. (Like the MURDER LIST? Yeah... Come on Barry, WTF RU waiting for?!)
And I, like many Liberals, am certainly not above critical discussion of President Obama. But I cannot STAND it when he's criticised for continuing Bush-era policies by the same RW Fools that HEER-LEAD the SAME POLICIES when Bush was in office, while REAL Civil Libertarians were voicing their concerns and were ridiculed BY THESE SAME PEOPLE for it!
The list of hypocrisy and projection on the part oft he Right grows and grows, and this is actually two more examples in one: First - They complain Obama doing what Bush did... And criticised us fro complaining about it under Bush! Second - They keep saying we don't criticize Obama. That he's our "Messiah" or that anyone who criticise him will be called a racist. Um... No. That's a lot of shit that the Right just MADE UP. And it's obvious from how these things always play out, that THEY are the ones who can't stand to see their leaders criticized.
How much more obvious can that be when the criticize Obama for doing the very things THEY INVENTED?!
Oh yeah... And speaking of Cracked, here's another great article. There "liberal bias" (read penchant for living in reality) is less subtle with this one. The article's great, and some of the comments are even better. (Look for mine: 'EddieCabot'!)
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
The outrage meter still works apparently...
Just when I thought that the Right Wing could sink no farther into the slime, one of pieces of shit comes along and recalibrates my outrage meter. Today this service comes compliments of editorialist venomous Right-wing hack, Ann Coulter.
Speaking on Hannity last night, Miss Coulter explained that the Kent State Massacre in May of 1970 was "justified" because...
"That's what you do with a mob."
Now... I'm going to repeat that, because it bears repeating, but before I do, here's a refresher course in case anyone forgot what happened. (And shame on you if you did.)
On May 4th of 1970, an estimated 2,000 people gather on the Kent State University Campus in Kent, Ohio in protest of the Vietnam War. Specifically they were protest President Nixon's decision to expand the war despite having won the presidency in 1968 running on a campaign promise to end it. What's more they students, mostly children (and members) of working and middle class families who were being unfairly targeted by the draft as those from wealthy families could better afford to pay the $300 commutation fee to essentially exclude themselves.
Just before 12:30, with the crowd refusing to disperse after four days of protest, and having lobbed the National Guards' own tear gas canisters back at them, the National Guard opened fire on the crowd, shooting 67 rounds in 13 seconds. When the smoke had cleared, four students lay dead:
Jeffrey Miller, age 20
Allison Krause, age 19
William Schroeder, age 19
Sandra Scheuer, age 20
I can't find which was which, but it is worth mentioning that one or two were merely watching the demonstration, and were not part of it, and one was hit by a stray bullet as she walked to class.
Three days after the event, even Vice President Agnew describe the action as murder. (Though, ever the lawyer, he did add, "but not first degree" since there was "no premeditation.") Still - that from the guy who's administration was being protested against.
But to Ann Coulter? Having the United States Military gun down American Citizens for exercising their First Amendment Rights on American Soil was justified.
"That's what you do with a mob."
We've long known that Miss Coulter talks a pretty good game, at least in Right Wing circles, when it comes to "supporting the troops." Too bad she can't ever seem to muster any "support" for the FREEDOMS those troops are risking their lives to protect.
(Deep breath...)
Now...
In the past I've made no secret of my hated of both misogyny and hypocrisy, but I've got a "get - out - of - hypocrisy - free" card in this case, since what I am about to say reflects not my own true feelings, but rather serves as an example to Miss Coulter of what it might look like if someone treated her they way she seems to treat every human being to her Left. (Which... is almost all of them.) There is no more hypocrisy inherent to giving someone a taste of their own medicine than there in inherent to basic (or poetic) justice. That being said, I'd like to see someone go up and give Ann Coutler a hard, back-handed slap to the face. Because...
"That's what you do with a mouthy bitch!"
Speaking on Hannity last night, Miss Coulter explained that the Kent State Massacre in May of 1970 was "justified" because...
"That's what you do with a mob."
Now... I'm going to repeat that, because it bears repeating, but before I do, here's a refresher course in case anyone forgot what happened. (And shame on you if you did.)
On May 4th of 1970, an estimated 2,000 people gather on the Kent State University Campus in Kent, Ohio in protest of the Vietnam War. Specifically they were protest President Nixon's decision to expand the war despite having won the presidency in 1968 running on a campaign promise to end it. What's more they students, mostly children (and members) of working and middle class families who were being unfairly targeted by the draft as those from wealthy families could better afford to pay the $300 commutation fee to essentially exclude themselves.
Just before 12:30, with the crowd refusing to disperse after four days of protest, and having lobbed the National Guards' own tear gas canisters back at them, the National Guard opened fire on the crowd, shooting 67 rounds in 13 seconds. When the smoke had cleared, four students lay dead:
Jeffrey Miller, age 20
Allison Krause, age 19
William Schroeder, age 19
Sandra Scheuer, age 20
I can't find which was which, but it is worth mentioning that one or two were merely watching the demonstration, and were not part of it, and one was hit by a stray bullet as she walked to class.
Three days after the event, even Vice President Agnew describe the action as murder. (Though, ever the lawyer, he did add, "but not first degree" since there was "no premeditation.") Still - that from the guy who's administration was being protested against.
But to Ann Coulter? Having the United States Military gun down American Citizens for exercising their First Amendment Rights on American Soil was justified.
"That's what you do with a mob."
We've long known that Miss Coulter talks a pretty good game, at least in Right Wing circles, when it comes to "supporting the troops." Too bad she can't ever seem to muster any "support" for the FREEDOMS those troops are risking their lives to protect.
(Deep breath...)
Now...
In the past I've made no secret of my hated of both misogyny and hypocrisy, but I've got a "get - out - of - hypocrisy - free" card in this case, since what I am about to say reflects not my own true feelings, but rather serves as an example to Miss Coulter of what it might look like if someone treated her they way she seems to treat every human being to her Left. (Which... is almost all of them.) There is no more hypocrisy inherent to giving someone a taste of their own medicine than there in inherent to basic (or poetic) justice. That being said, I'd like to see someone go up and give Ann Coutler a hard, back-handed slap to the face. Because...
"That's what you do with a mouthy bitch!"
Monday, June 6, 2011
Reagan Jokes (not what you think...)
He may have been the most over-rated President of All-Time, but I have to admit: The man could certainly deliver a joke. And boy did he during his eight years in office...
In the immortal words of Daniel Lawrence Whitney, "I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!"
Speaking of which, here's another classic...
I'm not going to keep posting my own jokes here (unless anyone thinks that's a good idea? Whatever. I don't.) This is also going to the last time I re-post a joke I've already told. So if you want to hear some good ones (mostly of a non-political nature) please subscribe to my YouTube channel.
In the immortal words of Daniel Lawrence Whitney, "I don't care who you are, that's funny right there!"
Speaking of which, here's another classic...
I'm not going to keep posting my own jokes here (unless anyone thinks that's a good idea? Whatever. I don't.) This is also going to the last time I re-post a joke I've already told. So if you want to hear some good ones (mostly of a non-political nature) please subscribe to my YouTube channel.
Four things...
The were a couple of items today on Media Matters that really got me thinking. I was tied up all day at work and didn't have the time to comment on them, but I'd like to do so here, because I think they are very indicative of how Conservatives thynk and what they prynciples are.
(See what I did there?)
The first was this item about the Federal ICE and Secure Communities Programs. There's a lot of the same old bullshit... (They're not racists, they're just saying that every Mexican is a criminal!) They lie about they're affect on our economy, and our tax base, and the job market. But there's a sub-text buried in there, almost like an afterthought, that I found to be almost laughably profound: They focus on California, and the fact that in opting out of these programs, they also want to opt out of federal cross-checks. Or, at least... not perform them, per federal immigration law.
Now... they were hardly praising this move. In fact, as I read it, they seemed to take rather serious issue with California's bucking federal law here. Which got me thinking:
Aren't these guys supposed to be all about State's Rights and limiting the power of the Federal Government and letting States decide for themselves what laws to have and how to enforce them?
Well... They certainly TALK a good game there. But it's clear that this principle only matters if those States choose to resits LIBERAL Laws (non-discrimination laws, hate-crime legislation, industrial and environmental regulations) and replace them with CONSERVATIVE ones (anti-abortion measure, union-busting, prayer in school, etc...) Which means this whole, "States Rights" thing? Isn't a PRINCIPLE at all. It only comes into play when it serves their overall agenda - Which has nothing to do with States Rights. In this case? It's just more blatant racism, using propaganda to refute reality.
The second thing, was this. In their effort to vilify Planned Parenthood as nothing more than an abortion mill, dedicated to some kind of genocide, the National Review's Rich Lowry, when presented with actual, factual data on how much of PP's business is abortion services (3%) and how much of its revenue was represented by those services (15%) and the fact that no federal money was ever used to pay or or subsidize those services, he simply waved his hands and called the data, "Fake And Bogus."
I've said it before folks: The biggest different between how Liberals think and how Conservatives thynk is that Liberals evaluate the evidence and then form their position accordingly, whilst Conservatives form their position and then evaluate the evidence accordingly.
I've always known that to be true, but I'd never thought I'd see it proven so... clumsily!
The third was RW micro-hack Hugh Hewitt's advice for Sarah Palin to not participate in presidential debates that are organized by "traditional media" outlets, claiming that they were overwhelming opposed to the election of GOP candidates, and that she should expect them to ask the "gotcha" questions. Like...
Calling out the fact that they are so far to the right on abortion that they no longer support exceptions for rape victims (or as Keith Olbermann more aptly put it: supporting the rapist's Bill of Rights) is something bad, journalistically speaking?
Pointing out either the continued, absurd belief that Saddam had WMD's, or the utterly psychotic viewpoint that the war was even remotely justified without them (hell - it wasn't necessarily justified WITH them!) is information that the American People shouldn't have access to?
Teaching evolution in the classroom? Believing in long and thoroughly disproven fairy-stories over science, and wanting to TEACH that to our children? We shouldn't know (or care?) about that?!
Global Warming?! Again with the thoroughly disproven fairy-stories over science, only this time they get to make money off of it, while slowly dooming humanity to a planet that can no longer support them? This isn't something we should know about the candidate?!
Hugh... I've got a question for you: If you're so ashamed of you viewpoints, WHY DO YOU HAVE THEM? If your positions on these issues make you so unpalatable to the American people that you can't even defend them in a simple interview, then WHY SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTE FOR YOU['RE CANDIDATE]?
Again... I always knew they only cared about winning, and about power, and couldn't give two shits about what's important to a super-majortiy of the American people, but still...
They're usually better about hiding it!
Though... I still wonder why any politician, any Representative of the People, should hold a position that such an anathema to the people he represents, that he doesn't want anyone to know about it! That ALONE should disqualify ANYONE from holding a public office, no?
And the LAST THING, well... if you REALLY want to read some shit... ;)
(See what I did there?)
The first was this item about the Federal ICE and Secure Communities Programs. There's a lot of the same old bullshit... (They're not racists, they're just saying that every Mexican is a criminal!) They lie about they're affect on our economy, and our tax base, and the job market. But there's a sub-text buried in there, almost like an afterthought, that I found to be almost laughably profound: They focus on California, and the fact that in opting out of these programs, they also want to opt out of federal cross-checks. Or, at least... not perform them, per federal immigration law.
Now... they were hardly praising this move. In fact, as I read it, they seemed to take rather serious issue with California's bucking federal law here. Which got me thinking:
Aren't these guys supposed to be all about State's Rights and limiting the power of the Federal Government and letting States decide for themselves what laws to have and how to enforce them?
Well... They certainly TALK a good game there. But it's clear that this principle only matters if those States choose to resits LIBERAL Laws (non-discrimination laws, hate-crime legislation, industrial and environmental regulations) and replace them with CONSERVATIVE ones (anti-abortion measure, union-busting, prayer in school, etc...) Which means this whole, "States Rights" thing? Isn't a PRINCIPLE at all. It only comes into play when it serves their overall agenda - Which has nothing to do with States Rights. In this case? It's just more blatant racism, using propaganda to refute reality.
The second thing, was this. In their effort to vilify Planned Parenthood as nothing more than an abortion mill, dedicated to some kind of genocide, the National Review's Rich Lowry, when presented with actual, factual data on how much of PP's business is abortion services (3%) and how much of its revenue was represented by those services (15%) and the fact that no federal money was ever used to pay or or subsidize those services, he simply waved his hands and called the data, "Fake And Bogus."
I've said it before folks: The biggest different between how Liberals think and how Conservatives thynk is that Liberals evaluate the evidence and then form their position accordingly, whilst Conservatives form their position and then evaluate the evidence accordingly.
I've always known that to be true, but I'd never thought I'd see it proven so... clumsily!
The third was RW micro-hack Hugh Hewitt's advice for Sarah Palin to not participate in presidential debates that are organized by "traditional media" outlets, claiming that they were overwhelming opposed to the election of GOP candidates, and that she should expect them to ask the "gotcha" questions. Like...
"[The] standard stunt questions on abortion in the event of rape or incest, weapons of mass destruction, evolution, global warming, or any of a dozen other dog whistles to the left designed to create the moment that replicates across the Web."Anyone see anything wrong with this kind of thynking?
Calling out the fact that they are so far to the right on abortion that they no longer support exceptions for rape victims (or as Keith Olbermann more aptly put it: supporting the rapist's Bill of Rights) is something bad, journalistically speaking?
Pointing out either the continued, absurd belief that Saddam had WMD's, or the utterly psychotic viewpoint that the war was even remotely justified without them (hell - it wasn't necessarily justified WITH them!) is information that the American People shouldn't have access to?
Teaching evolution in the classroom? Believing in long and thoroughly disproven fairy-stories over science, and wanting to TEACH that to our children? We shouldn't know (or care?) about that?!
Global Warming?! Again with the thoroughly disproven fairy-stories over science, only this time they get to make money off of it, while slowly dooming humanity to a planet that can no longer support them? This isn't something we should know about the candidate?!
Hugh... I've got a question for you: If you're so ashamed of you viewpoints, WHY DO YOU HAVE THEM? If your positions on these issues make you so unpalatable to the American people that you can't even defend them in a simple interview, then WHY SHOULD THE AMERICAN PEOPLE VOTE FOR YOU['RE CANDIDATE]?
Again... I always knew they only cared about winning, and about power, and couldn't give two shits about what's important to a super-majortiy of the American people, but still...
They're usually better about hiding it!
Though... I still wonder why any politician, any Representative of the People, should hold a position that such an anathema to the people he represents, that he doesn't want anyone to know about it! That ALONE should disqualify ANYONE from holding a public office, no?
And the LAST THING, well... if you REALLY want to read some shit... ;)
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Joke of the Day (not political)
OK, so I've used this one before, but here you go, in case you missed it...
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Silver Star Awards, May, 2011
It's the last day of the month, which means... time for the SILVER STAR AWARDS. (Sometimes that's also what the first day means: time for LAST MONTH'S awards! LOL) Anyway, were' up to the MLB HoF election of 1963, which saw four members elected by the Veteran's Committee - so no Golds this month, but for Silvers going out.
The John Clarkson Silver Star #28: Misfile
Its seems every time I get a bunch of Silvers in one month, I have at least on web-comic. Well... no sense changing now! LOL. Misfile is a very funny web-comic featuring two characters, one that's had his gender changed and one that lost (was forced to repeat) the last two years of her life (the two miserable years she spent studying her ass off to getting into Harvard no less!) due to a celestial fuck-up on the part of a certain, mostly drunken, Angel who's now laying low and trying (not very hard) to set things right. The artwork is very Manga-like, and very clean considering it's mostly pencil-work. In additional to a kick-ass art-style, the characters Chris Hazelton's created are strong, human, interesting, fallible, flawed and perfect. The relations are real and complex with ups, downs, trust and betrayal. Oh yeah, and the odd gender-bending humor? Funny as hell. And while is NOT what I would consider a trans-gendered comic, since the whole plot is magically-based, it does get into issue of acceptance, both public and self. As with all web-comics, I recommend reading this one from the beginning.
The Elmer Flick Silver Star #29: The Nostalgia Critic
If you were alive at any time during the 1980's, and either loved the decade or remember how utterly tacky and cheesy it was (or both) you'll love to hear this obnoxious foole absolutely eviscerate it. He takes the best (and worst) of popular culture from the last 1970's, 1980's and early 1990's (so, IOW: my life, or the part I remember) and has great fun goofing on it. He's obnoxious... but he elevates it to an art form. Funny as hell. But if you're under the age of 30? Maybe 25? Don't bother. You won't remember it. (Which is OK, because the Nostalgia Critic remembers it, so you don't have to!)
The Sam Rice Silver Star #30: The Perry Bible Fellowship
OK, so this months, there's two comics! This one's been on hiatus for a long time (finished?) but it's still very worth checking out. The humor is ironic, irreverent and subtly dark and twisted. The artistic style varies from cartoony to actual ART, using a variety of media. It's great stuff. Check it out.
The Eppa Rixey Aluminum Star: Newsbusters
(It's been a while since I high-lighted a low-light. LOL)
Ah, good old Newsbusters. "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias." Well... not really. To expose something, it must first ACTUALLY EXIST. Reading Newsbusters provides one with little more than evidence that anything to the Left of Rush Limbaugh's Oxycontin-fueled wet dreams is "Liberally Biased." (Or, as Stephen Colbert put it: That REALITY has a Liberal bias!) What's more, to "Combat" it, one needs to formulate an actual ARGUMENT. Some of my readers might instinctively point out that convincing a Right-Winger that the Right is right is about as difficult as putting on a hat. But that's all they've really managed to do: Convince die-hard conservatives that Liberal's are "wrong." Which... is pretty much completely unnecessary, since most Conservative usually START OUT their argument with that assumption! So, why do they even need to exsist then? What's their raison detre? For all their "exposure" and "combat," the most they can do? Is reach level four.
Cheers, my friends!
The John Clarkson Silver Star #28: Misfile
Its seems every time I get a bunch of Silvers in one month, I have at least on web-comic. Well... no sense changing now! LOL. Misfile is a very funny web-comic featuring two characters, one that's had his gender changed and one that lost (was forced to repeat) the last two years of her life (the two miserable years she spent studying her ass off to getting into Harvard no less!) due to a celestial fuck-up on the part of a certain, mostly drunken, Angel who's now laying low and trying (not very hard) to set things right. The artwork is very Manga-like, and very clean considering it's mostly pencil-work. In additional to a kick-ass art-style, the characters Chris Hazelton's created are strong, human, interesting, fallible, flawed and perfect. The relations are real and complex with ups, downs, trust and betrayal. Oh yeah, and the odd gender-bending humor? Funny as hell. And while is NOT what I would consider a trans-gendered comic, since the whole plot is magically-based, it does get into issue of acceptance, both public and self. As with all web-comics, I recommend reading this one from the beginning.
The Elmer Flick Silver Star #29: The Nostalgia Critic
If you were alive at any time during the 1980's, and either loved the decade or remember how utterly tacky and cheesy it was (or both) you'll love to hear this obnoxious foole absolutely eviscerate it. He takes the best (and worst) of popular culture from the last 1970's, 1980's and early 1990's (so, IOW: my life, or the part I remember) and has great fun goofing on it. He's obnoxious... but he elevates it to an art form. Funny as hell. But if you're under the age of 30? Maybe 25? Don't bother. You won't remember it. (Which is OK, because the Nostalgia Critic remembers it, so you don't have to!)
The Sam Rice Silver Star #30: The Perry Bible Fellowship
OK, so this months, there's two comics! This one's been on hiatus for a long time (finished?) but it's still very worth checking out. The humor is ironic, irreverent and subtly dark and twisted. The artistic style varies from cartoony to actual ART, using a variety of media. It's great stuff. Check it out.
The Eppa Rixey Aluminum Star: Newsbusters
(It's been a while since I high-lighted a low-light. LOL)
Ah, good old Newsbusters. "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias." Well... not really. To expose something, it must first ACTUALLY EXIST. Reading Newsbusters provides one with little more than evidence that anything to the Left of Rush Limbaugh's Oxycontin-fueled wet dreams is "Liberally Biased." (Or, as Stephen Colbert put it: That REALITY has a Liberal bias!) What's more, to "Combat" it, one needs to formulate an actual ARGUMENT. Some of my readers might instinctively point out that convincing a Right-Winger that the Right is right is about as difficult as putting on a hat. But that's all they've really managed to do: Convince die-hard conservatives that Liberal's are "wrong." Which... is pretty much completely unnecessary, since most Conservative usually START OUT their argument with that assumption! So, why do they even need to exsist then? What's their raison detre? For all their "exposure" and "combat," the most they can do? Is reach level four.
Cheers, my friends!
Obama's Katrina
A lot happened this month, but alas I could not be bothered to find the time to write about it. Personally though I think the last couple of months can be summed in in one single dick-move by Congressional Republicans and Eric Cantor.
We've watched for months (the last two years, actually) while they prioritized budget austerity in the face of crushing economic woes, knowing that this could only prolong America's misery and that most of the ignorant fools (the Right) would just blame Obama'.
Because, you know: FUCK WORKING PEOPLE.
(And DOUBLE-FUCK the unemployed!)
And in truth, some of the blame DOES lie with Obama for his refusal to take the gloves off and call out their anti-American, routing for failure bullshit for what it is. (As I have just done.) We've seen what he's capable of. We saw this at the correspondent's dinner, and we saw it on immigration reform with his "alligator filled moat" comment. We KNOW he can do it. And that makes it all that much sadder than he doesn't employ this razor wit more often.
And now they go beyond trying to keep the economy shitty. In an effort to pull down Obama, they're going to do their damnedest to turn Joplin's Tornadoes into a Katrina-like disaster. It won't work - or at least it shouldn't - mainly because the crisis following Katrina was MUCH WORSE. And any failings on the parts of Mayor Nagan-D and Governor Blanco-D only made for a greater opportunity for FEMA Direct Brown-R and President Bush-R to show some REAL LEADERSHIP.
And they failed, miserably, EPICALLY, to do this.
But do you know what I DON'T remember? I don't remember Congressional Democrats accusing Bush of overreaching his authority during Katrina, or off being irresponsible with the budget when it came to spending too much on relief efforts, or dicking around with obstructionist tactics to prevent him from acting while people's houses, businesses and lives were destroyed. But who knows?
I mean... That could have just been a failure of that good old, Liberal Media to tell the story, right?
Because they sure have failed to make sure people have the right ideas about THIS story.
We've watched for months (the last two years, actually) while they prioritized budget austerity in the face of crushing economic woes, knowing that this could only prolong America's misery and that most of the ignorant fools (the Right) would just blame Obama'.
Because, you know: FUCK WORKING PEOPLE.
(And DOUBLE-FUCK the unemployed!)
And in truth, some of the blame DOES lie with Obama for his refusal to take the gloves off and call out their anti-American, routing for failure bullshit for what it is. (As I have just done.) We've seen what he's capable of. We saw this at the correspondent's dinner, and we saw it on immigration reform with his "alligator filled moat" comment. We KNOW he can do it. And that makes it all that much sadder than he doesn't employ this razor wit more often.
And now they go beyond trying to keep the economy shitty. In an effort to pull down Obama, they're going to do their damnedest to turn Joplin's Tornadoes into a Katrina-like disaster. It won't work - or at least it shouldn't - mainly because the crisis following Katrina was MUCH WORSE. And any failings on the parts of Mayor Nagan-D and Governor Blanco-D only made for a greater opportunity for FEMA Direct Brown-R and President Bush-R to show some REAL LEADERSHIP.
And they failed, miserably, EPICALLY, to do this.
But do you know what I DON'T remember? I don't remember Congressional Democrats accusing Bush of overreaching his authority during Katrina, or off being irresponsible with the budget when it came to spending too much on relief efforts, or dicking around with obstructionist tactics to prevent him from acting while people's houses, businesses and lives were destroyed. But who knows?
I mean... That could have just been a failure of that good old, Liberal Media to tell the story, right?
Because they sure have failed to make sure people have the right ideas about THIS story.
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Strarbucks Fires Dwarf
Starbucks is being sued for firing a woman who has dwarfism. After three days of barista training, the woman was fired from an El Paso store on the same day she asked for a stool or small stepladder to perform her job.
If you read the comments (and do recommend it) make sure you clink the "all" button. There's a very thoughtful discussion going on there.
Bottom line, IMHO? Starbucks didn't make nearly enough of an effort to find a reasonable accommodation, and has a pretty lousy track record in this department. And I think it's absurd that the expected reaction should be that if they lose, more companies will be leery of hiring dwarfs or anyone else they might need to accommodate. It's so absurd. There are so many ways this could have easily been worked out, but in the end sloth motivated by no more than simple discrimination won out. The ADA is one of those laws I see as an inherent good and it's signing was one of the non-war related highlights of the Bush'41 administration and it's expansion to include a broader range of people was one of the few thing Bush'43 did right.
It's equaling amazing and depressing that there remains a group of people in this country who are afraid to ask for reasonable accommodations or feel they need to hide their handicaps (when possible) to avoid discrimination. I read all the comments in that article, and it really made for a very thoughtful, spirited discussion in which both sides were represented, but really? Starbucks is 100% in the wrong here because they didn't even try to accommodate her or find something that would work. (Couldn't she have been a dedicate cashier? Or transferred to a different Starbucks, with a larger workspace? Seems like there usually a dozen with walking difference.) I'm interested to see how this plays out. Here's hoping they draw the Liberal equivalent of a Hanging Judge.
Oh, yeah... And the best comment?
What do you expect from a company whose smallest drink is a Tall?
If you read the comments (and do recommend it) make sure you clink the "all" button. There's a very thoughtful discussion going on there.
Bottom line, IMHO? Starbucks didn't make nearly enough of an effort to find a reasonable accommodation, and has a pretty lousy track record in this department. And I think it's absurd that the expected reaction should be that if they lose, more companies will be leery of hiring dwarfs or anyone else they might need to accommodate. It's so absurd. There are so many ways this could have easily been worked out, but in the end sloth motivated by no more than simple discrimination won out. The ADA is one of those laws I see as an inherent good and it's signing was one of the non-war related highlights of the Bush'41 administration and it's expansion to include a broader range of people was one of the few thing Bush'43 did right.
It's equaling amazing and depressing that there remains a group of people in this country who are afraid to ask for reasonable accommodations or feel they need to hide their handicaps (when possible) to avoid discrimination. I read all the comments in that article, and it really made for a very thoughtful, spirited discussion in which both sides were represented, but really? Starbucks is 100% in the wrong here because they didn't even try to accommodate her or find something that would work. (Couldn't she have been a dedicate cashier? Or transferred to a different Starbucks, with a larger workspace? Seems like there usually a dozen with walking difference.) I'm interested to see how this plays out. Here's hoping they draw the Liberal equivalent of a Hanging Judge.
Oh, yeah... And the best comment?
What do you expect from a company whose smallest drink is a Tall?
WTF?! (not political)
OK, I just have to share this with you guys... And PLEASE, tell me how you would interpret this, how you would feel about this, becuase... I'm sorry, this is messed up...
My mother sends me articles that she cuts out of the paper from time to time. (I tend to get my news online, so other than for the Sunday circularm we rarely buy a newspaper.) And in the last bacth, she included the following, from the WSJ:
Out, Out, Pesky Sweat Stains
and
Ways to Deal With a Stichy Underarm Situation
Here ths thing: These two were addressed to my wife, with the note: "[Wife's Name], thought you would find article about sweating interesting."
So... DW's like... "WTF?!"
And I am laughing my ass off.
So, yeah, seriously, WTF?
What would you guys think about that?
My mother sends me articles that she cuts out of the paper from time to time. (I tend to get my news online, so other than for the Sunday circularm we rarely buy a newspaper.) And in the last bacth, she included the following, from the WSJ:
Out, Out, Pesky Sweat Stains
and
Ways to Deal With a Stichy Underarm Situation
Here ths thing: These two were addressed to my wife, with the note: "[Wife's Name], thought you would find article about sweating interesting."
So... DW's like... "WTF?!"
And I am laughing my ass off.
So, yeah, seriously, WTF?
What would you guys think about that?
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
Funny picture
This came from a cracked.com photoplasty contest. There were a slew of good ones, but I'm a huge Star Wars fan, plus this one rather approproiate to the blog:
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Who says Liberals don't love America?
This song is dedicated to every Conservative who likes it becuase they don't understand irony.
LOL
My new favorite song. Couldn't have said better myself if you gave me a thousand years to try.
LOL
My new favorite song. Couldn't have said better myself if you gave me a thousand years to try.
Friday, May 13, 2011
The Tragedy of John McCain
By now, I'm sure many of you have heard John McCain's position regarding the use of torture (ahem) enhanced interrogation techniques, the waterborading of Khalid Shake Muhammad and the Death of Osama Bin Laden.
In short?
1) Traditional methods of interrogation led to Bin Laden's capture
2) Torture doesn't work and produces bad information
3) The Republicans are full of shit on this one.
Now let me say up front: There's a LOT that John McCain does, says, believes and champions that I don't not support or agree with. (And to be fair, as it turned out, I can say the same about Obama! LOL) And I'm well aware that his "Maverick" label is more a creation of his own campaign strategists and the media than anything based in reality. But in those rare instances when a Republican gets it right and speaks the truth, 80% of the time that Republican seems to be John McCain. (And before you dispute that, do the math, and first consider how rare it this that this actually happens!)
Unfortunately, these rare occasions when Senator McCain stands up to his party, stands up to popular (on the Right anyway) but ultimately immoral and illegal behavior, and shows himself to be a fine, upstanding, principled, American Public Servant, only serve to contrast John McCain-R the party sell out that we saw in the years between being knee-capped by George Bush in the 2000 Republican Primaries and the 2008 Presidential Campaign in which he became a more reliable proponent of party talking points than all of AM Talk Radio and Fox News combined. Oh, yeah, and along the way... INTRODUCED AMERICANS TO SARAH F. PALIN!
WTF happened?
It like after the 2000 Primaries he made a personal pact, George Wallace style, that he'd never be out-niggered (or out-liberaled) ever again, and started a steady march to the Right that continued even after his 2008 Presidential electoral loss to Barack Obama!
I mean... How can someone who demonstrates that they have enough of a conscience to make a statement like this one, spend so much of the rest of their time trying to prove otherwise?! How does a guy that I probably would have voted for in 2000 (yeah, though admittedly I learned a LOT in the years that followed) become such an utterly despicable sell-out, and then have the nerve to show me something like this, as if to say, "The John McCain you admired once? The one that would have kept you in the Republican party (albeit in the libertarian faction)? He's still here! Deep down. I did all I could to suppress him all these years, but I'm too old to ever run again, so I'll let him out occasionally. Just to tease you a little, and make you think of what might have been!"
For brief moment, seeing him on CNN the other day, I felt like I should party like it was 1999.
I'm sure it won't last. The Right can't allow the truth to be told. Especially not on national television.
In short?
1) Traditional methods of interrogation led to Bin Laden's capture
2) Torture doesn't work and produces bad information
3) The Republicans are full of shit on this one.
Now let me say up front: There's a LOT that John McCain does, says, believes and champions that I don't not support or agree with. (And to be fair, as it turned out, I can say the same about Obama! LOL) And I'm well aware that his "Maverick" label is more a creation of his own campaign strategists and the media than anything based in reality. But in those rare instances when a Republican gets it right and speaks the truth, 80% of the time that Republican seems to be John McCain. (And before you dispute that, do the math, and first consider how rare it this that this actually happens!)
Unfortunately, these rare occasions when Senator McCain stands up to his party, stands up to popular (on the Right anyway) but ultimately immoral and illegal behavior, and shows himself to be a fine, upstanding, principled, American Public Servant, only serve to contrast John McCain-R the party sell out that we saw in the years between being knee-capped by George Bush in the 2000 Republican Primaries and the 2008 Presidential Campaign in which he became a more reliable proponent of party talking points than all of AM Talk Radio and Fox News combined. Oh, yeah, and along the way... INTRODUCED AMERICANS TO SARAH F. PALIN!
WTF happened?
It like after the 2000 Primaries he made a personal pact, George Wallace style, that he'd never be out-niggered (or out-liberaled) ever again, and started a steady march to the Right that continued even after his 2008 Presidential electoral loss to Barack Obama!
I mean... How can someone who demonstrates that they have enough of a conscience to make a statement like this one, spend so much of the rest of their time trying to prove otherwise?! How does a guy that I probably would have voted for in 2000 (yeah, though admittedly I learned a LOT in the years that followed) become such an utterly despicable sell-out, and then have the nerve to show me something like this, as if to say, "The John McCain you admired once? The one that would have kept you in the Republican party (albeit in the libertarian faction)? He's still here! Deep down. I did all I could to suppress him all these years, but I'm too old to ever run again, so I'll let him out occasionally. Just to tease you a little, and make you think of what might have been!"
For brief moment, seeing him on CNN the other day, I felt like I should party like it was 1999.
I'm sure it won't last. The Right can't allow the truth to be told. Especially not on national television.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Three Romantic Ideals
Is it me, or does it seem sometimes that the race to the top of Conservative media is little more than a contest to see who can be the biggest dick?
As I mentioned in my last post, I posted something on Media Matters that got a hugely positive response and I wanted to expand on it. It was in response to this little display of douchebaggery by Glenn Beck:
Now... put all politics aside for the moment, and let's consider what he's barfing at: The daughter of a skin cancer survivor (and a decorated Vietnam Veteran, at that!) is raising public awareness about the disease and the risk of sun damage, and in doing so, exposes her... SHOULDERS! (Oh my god, the SCANDAL! Next there will dancing!) And while it is completely irrelevant, I'll point that the woman in question is rather quite attractive. Really beautiful, actually.
So... What the fuck is Glenn Beck problem?! (Please don't answer that, we'll be here all day and night!)
Now... what I posted, and what I'm going to re-state here, I posted once before on MMFA, on another piece showcasing Glenn Beck's naked misogyny, when he used the Royal Wedding as a platform to rate women on his scale of 'hottness.'
OK... At this point it is patently obvious that Glenn Beck has a SERIOUS problem with women. But, as I'm sure I don't need to point out, the Right has a serious problem with women in general. (You KNOW that Rush Limbaugh is not on his fourth wife because so many women can't get enough of him!)
And besides... Think about it: If a woman is brainlessly repeating the party line? (Coulter, Malkin, Ingrahm, etc...) or is a party insider? (Palin, Bachman, O'Donnell) They can't get enough of her. These guys practically dry-hump Palin every time she's in the room. But if one starts questioning their malfeasance (like Rachel Maddow) or has the audacity to be independent or has the nerve to *gasp* age (Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton) suddenly they can't even discuss policy without mentioning how ugly they think these women are! And fro the most part? That the extent of their argument!
You know... I don't think I ever heard a Conservative coherently state one of Nancy Pelosi's policies and explain why they find it so abhorrent. All any Conservative has EVER been able to tell me about Nancy Pelosi is that she's (1) Liberal (duh!) and (2) Ugly, old and/or botoxed.
So I want to be clear that I am not stating the following merely as a way of burnishing my own feminist cred, but rather to, in one simple post, neuter and debunk every single occurrence of this brand of Right Wing misogyny that has ever occur ed and ever will. So let me get on my soapbox, and elaborate on my romantic idealism:
Rule #1: All women are beautiful.
Rule #2: If you meet someone who truly makes you happy, and who you truly want to make happy in return, physical traits up to and including gender are not important. Should you be gay, or the they be trans, etc... This is not important. Just BE HAPPY. And MAKE EACH OTHER HAPPY. This is all you can do in this life.
Rule #3: The sexiest part of a woman's body is between her ears.
First off, let me point out strait up that these are ideals. As I am human, I am forced to admit that I do not always live up to my ideals. No human being does. At times, we fail. (And to be fair, I can not honestly say that I have ever been tested on Rule #2.) But these are things I truly believe. And I want to address some of the challenges that have been posed, just to show you that, yes, I do really believe in them.
ALL Women? Really?
Yes, all women. And here: I'll prove it to you. This is for the Heterosexual Men out there: Picture for a moment the least fortunate looking woman you know. (On a purely physical level, I mean.) Now think of the best looking man you can think of... Brad Pitt in Legends of the Fall, maybe. (Sure, why not?) Now, let me ask you: Which one would you rather have sex with?
I rest my case.
If the least beautiful woman you can think of is sexually preferable to the most beautiful man I can think of? Then all women MUST be beautiful!
LOL
What about... ANN COULTER?
Hoo boy... That's a tough one isn't it.
And it a sad example because it the one time you really see LIBERALS piling on and pointing out how ugly they think she is. And guys? Don't do this. Seriously. Not cool.
First of all, what Ann Coulter SAYS and WRITES is vile, disgusting and despicable in it own right. Her physical appearence is irrelevant to the scumbaggery that she puts out for a living. (She puts out for a living? LOL) (SHAME on me for writing that, and on you if you laughed at it!) The importance of exposing the vile, dishonest and downright un-American nature of what she says and writes is to great to risk the credibility of your argument by acting like a dick-thinking right winger and trashing her appearance. We're better than that. And more importantly? WE'RE RIGHT.
Besides... Imagine for a minute that Rachel Maddow looked exactly like Ann Coulter. Would you stop watching her? Would you stop listening? WOuld you no longer take her seriously? Would you feel the need to point out how hideous she is? I doubt it.
So fine: Coulter goes out of her way to be repulsive. And he lack of attractiveness? I'll bet dollars to dimes comes from our hatred of what she says, writes and stands for, and has little, if anythng at all to do with her physical traits. Ann Coulter is exactly as beautiful as she chooses to be at any given time. The same can be said of every other RW Woman I mentioned above: There is nothing wrong with their physical appearace. (Rule #1) It's completely irrelevant (Rule #2) because the sexiest part of a woman's body is her BRAIN (Rule #3)...
...which is really why we can stand the sight of these people!
But that certainly doesn't mean that we should act like RW misogynists and put it in those terms!
Anyway, that's my philosophy. And let me tell you: My world is a far more beautiful place for having adopted it.
As I mentioned in my last post, I posted something on Media Matters that got a hugely positive response and I wanted to expand on it. It was in response to this little display of douchebaggery by Glenn Beck:
Now... put all politics aside for the moment, and let's consider what he's barfing at: The daughter of a skin cancer survivor (and a decorated Vietnam Veteran, at that!) is raising public awareness about the disease and the risk of sun damage, and in doing so, exposes her... SHOULDERS! (Oh my god, the SCANDAL! Next there will dancing!) And while it is completely irrelevant, I'll point that the woman in question is rather quite attractive. Really beautiful, actually.
So... What the fuck is Glenn Beck problem?! (Please don't answer that, we'll be here all day and night!)
Now... what I posted, and what I'm going to re-state here, I posted once before on MMFA, on another piece showcasing Glenn Beck's naked misogyny, when he used the Royal Wedding as a platform to rate women on his scale of 'hottness.'
OK... At this point it is patently obvious that Glenn Beck has a SERIOUS problem with women. But, as I'm sure I don't need to point out, the Right has a serious problem with women in general. (You KNOW that Rush Limbaugh is not on his fourth wife because so many women can't get enough of him!)
And besides... Think about it: If a woman is brainlessly repeating the party line? (Coulter, Malkin, Ingrahm, etc...) or is a party insider? (Palin, Bachman, O'Donnell) They can't get enough of her. These guys practically dry-hump Palin every time she's in the room. But if one starts questioning their malfeasance (like Rachel Maddow) or has the audacity to be independent or has the nerve to *gasp* age (Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton) suddenly they can't even discuss policy without mentioning how ugly they think these women are! And fro the most part? That the extent of their argument!
You know... I don't think I ever heard a Conservative coherently state one of Nancy Pelosi's policies and explain why they find it so abhorrent. All any Conservative has EVER been able to tell me about Nancy Pelosi is that she's (1) Liberal (duh!) and (2) Ugly, old and/or botoxed.
So I want to be clear that I am not stating the following merely as a way of burnishing my own feminist cred, but rather to, in one simple post, neuter and debunk every single occurrence of this brand of Right Wing misogyny that has ever occur ed and ever will. So let me get on my soapbox, and elaborate on my romantic idealism:
Rule #1: All women are beautiful.
Rule #2: If you meet someone who truly makes you happy, and who you truly want to make happy in return, physical traits up to and including gender are not important. Should you be gay, or the they be trans, etc... This is not important. Just BE HAPPY. And MAKE EACH OTHER HAPPY. This is all you can do in this life.
Rule #3: The sexiest part of a woman's body is between her ears.
First off, let me point out strait up that these are ideals. As I am human, I am forced to admit that I do not always live up to my ideals. No human being does. At times, we fail. (And to be fair, I can not honestly say that I have ever been tested on Rule #2.) But these are things I truly believe. And I want to address some of the challenges that have been posed, just to show you that, yes, I do really believe in them.
ALL Women? Really?
Yes, all women. And here: I'll prove it to you. This is for the Heterosexual Men out there: Picture for a moment the least fortunate looking woman you know. (On a purely physical level, I mean.) Now think of the best looking man you can think of... Brad Pitt in Legends of the Fall, maybe. (Sure, why not?) Now, let me ask you: Which one would you rather have sex with?
I rest my case.
If the least beautiful woman you can think of is sexually preferable to the most beautiful man I can think of? Then all women MUST be beautiful!
LOL
What about... ANN COULTER?
Hoo boy... That's a tough one isn't it.
And it a sad example because it the one time you really see LIBERALS piling on and pointing out how ugly they think she is. And guys? Don't do this. Seriously. Not cool.
First of all, what Ann Coulter SAYS and WRITES is vile, disgusting and despicable in it own right. Her physical appearence is irrelevant to the scumbaggery that she puts out for a living. (She puts out for a living? LOL) (SHAME on me for writing that, and on you if you laughed at it!) The importance of exposing the vile, dishonest and downright un-American nature of what she says and writes is to great to risk the credibility of your argument by acting like a dick-thinking right winger and trashing her appearance. We're better than that. And more importantly? WE'RE RIGHT.
Besides... Imagine for a minute that Rachel Maddow looked exactly like Ann Coulter. Would you stop watching her? Would you stop listening? WOuld you no longer take her seriously? Would you feel the need to point out how hideous she is? I doubt it.
So fine: Coulter goes out of her way to be repulsive. And he lack of attractiveness? I'll bet dollars to dimes comes from our hatred of what she says, writes and stands for, and has little, if anythng at all to do with her physical traits. Ann Coulter is exactly as beautiful as she chooses to be at any given time. The same can be said of every other RW Woman I mentioned above: There is nothing wrong with their physical appearace. (Rule #1) It's completely irrelevant (Rule #2) because the sexiest part of a woman's body is her BRAIN (Rule #3)...
...which is really why we can stand the sight of these people!
But that certainly doesn't mean that we should act like RW misogynists and put it in those terms!
Anyway, that's my philosophy. And let me tell you: My world is a far more beautiful place for having adopted it.
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Hoo boy...
I posted something on Media Matters today that got an overwhelmingly positive response and generated some interesting challenges to it as well. So I'm going to expand on the thought over here... just not now. (It's late.) LOL.
And between that and some ritualistic abuse of one "BoulderHippy" (truly one of the most brain-dead conservatives you're likely to meet, but one of those 'never gives up' types that makes MMFA so much fun) it seems I've attracted at least one Conservative Troll over here. Which is cool. And I can tell, becuase they went a voted "what a load" on every single item that came up in the blog! LOL. And yet... they left all of the older stuff unscathed. How lazy is that? If you're going to troll me, at least go back a page or two, right? LOL. But, I mean, WTF, they even "thumbs-downed" the WWII Veterans tribute song! I mean... why do they hate Veterans, right? ;)
And, go figure: Not ONE SINGLE COMMENT left in their wake. But then... I guess that's how I know it's not one of YOU GUYS, becuase if YOU think I'm full of shit, you've never been shy on calling me out on it! (And I truly wouldn't have it any other way!)
Anyway, like I said, it's late, so I'll get on my soapbox tomorrow. In the meantime, here's some music that worth a listen. I'm a huge fan of Pandora and I've been turned on to some GREAT bands through my Flogging Molly Channel: Great Big Sea, Carbon Leaf (who wrote THIS), the Tossers and a band called "DaVinci's Notebook" who are freaking hilarious.
Here's one of thiers. TELL ME we all haven't been THERE at some point! (I'm there at least once a week!)
(Yeah: Me too!)
If you liked that, and you generally like Irish Drinking Songs, here's Another Irish Drinking Song, also by DaVinci's Notebook:
What's the difference between an Irish Wedding and an Irish Funeral?
One less drunk.
Finally, there was something else that I want to share. This one's not funny at all. But I think it's has some contemporary social relevance in light of the draconian, anti-labor RW Agenda the Republicans are pushing through in places like Wisconsin (as fast as they possibly can, now that they're asses are all facing recalls!) and if you ever want a great pro-labor, anti-corporate bastards song, this one's for you. There's just one prob... I can't find an acceptable (complete) version of it!
This is a REALLY GOOD cover, by a gent name Kenn Gordon:
I like it, but he left off the final verse:
The thirties are a memory for Dad again
He tells me it can never be that bad again
But from Jarrow and from Clyde they come
With silent hearts and muffled drum
We want the cake and not the crumb
We're mad again
Me too, friend. Me too.
And between that and some ritualistic abuse of one "BoulderHippy" (truly one of the most brain-dead conservatives you're likely to meet, but one of those 'never gives up' types that makes MMFA so much fun) it seems I've attracted at least one Conservative Troll over here. Which is cool. And I can tell, becuase they went a voted "what a load" on every single item that came up in the blog! LOL. And yet... they left all of the older stuff unscathed. How lazy is that? If you're going to troll me, at least go back a page or two, right? LOL. But, I mean, WTF, they even "thumbs-downed" the WWII Veterans tribute song! I mean... why do they hate Veterans, right? ;)
And, go figure: Not ONE SINGLE COMMENT left in their wake. But then... I guess that's how I know it's not one of YOU GUYS, becuase if YOU think I'm full of shit, you've never been shy on calling me out on it! (And I truly wouldn't have it any other way!)
Anyway, like I said, it's late, so I'll get on my soapbox tomorrow. In the meantime, here's some music that worth a listen. I'm a huge fan of Pandora and I've been turned on to some GREAT bands through my Flogging Molly Channel: Great Big Sea, Carbon Leaf (who wrote THIS), the Tossers and a band called "DaVinci's Notebook" who are freaking hilarious.
Here's one of thiers. TELL ME we all haven't been THERE at some point! (I'm there at least once a week!)
(Yeah: Me too!)
If you liked that, and you generally like Irish Drinking Songs, here's Another Irish Drinking Song, also by DaVinci's Notebook:
What's the difference between an Irish Wedding and an Irish Funeral?
One less drunk.
Finally, there was something else that I want to share. This one's not funny at all. But I think it's has some contemporary social relevance in light of the draconian, anti-labor RW Agenda the Republicans are pushing through in places like Wisconsin (as fast as they possibly can, now that they're asses are all facing recalls!) and if you ever want a great pro-labor, anti-corporate bastards song, this one's for you. There's just one prob... I can't find an acceptable (complete) version of it!
This is a REALLY GOOD cover, by a gent name Kenn Gordon:
I like it, but he left off the final verse:
The thirties are a memory for Dad again
He tells me it can never be that bad again
But from Jarrow and from Clyde they come
With silent hearts and muffled drum
We want the cake and not the crumb
We're mad again
Me too, friend. Me too.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Good article by a good man...
LOL - That got you curious, didn't it?
It's pretty likely that you don't know this author, but I know him very well, personally. He is both one of very few truly good men in this world and and an underated talent. He recently penned an interesting piece reporting on the Vatican's position on Global Warming.
I always find it interesting when science and religion can agree on something. I wonder how this will affect the Catholic vote? (Sorry - the WHITE Catholic vote, I mean! LOL)
Actually, I'm sure this will just be more fodder for those other religious 'Mercans who view the Vatican as "just another European country that hates us." Yeah - I actualy got that in an email from a [Conservative, Baptist] friend of mine back when the pope was coming out against the execution of Saddam Hussein after having condemned the US's invasion of Iraq. After a rather loud *sigh* I explained that this is, in fact, what a PRINCIPLED "pro-life" position looks like: Against abortion, yes, but ALSO against the Death Penalty and War, in general. He conceded the point, but said he still thought it was "strange."
Well, there's plenty that the Vatican gets wrong, but I'll take them ANY day over the average 'Mercan Mega-Church. It's nice to see them on the right side of this one. Maybe religion can actually do some good after all!
It's pretty likely that you don't know this author, but I know him very well, personally. He is both one of very few truly good men in this world and and an underated talent. He recently penned an interesting piece reporting on the Vatican's position on Global Warming.
I always find it interesting when science and religion can agree on something. I wonder how this will affect the Catholic vote? (Sorry - the WHITE Catholic vote, I mean! LOL)
Actually, I'm sure this will just be more fodder for those other religious 'Mercans who view the Vatican as "just another European country that hates us." Yeah - I actualy got that in an email from a [Conservative, Baptist] friend of mine back when the pope was coming out against the execution of Saddam Hussein after having condemned the US's invasion of Iraq. After a rather loud *sigh* I explained that this is, in fact, what a PRINCIPLED "pro-life" position looks like: Against abortion, yes, but ALSO against the Death Penalty and War, in general. He conceded the point, but said he still thought it was "strange."
Well, there's plenty that the Vatican gets wrong, but I'll take them ANY day over the average 'Mercan Mega-Church. It's nice to see them on the right side of this one. Maybe religion can actually do some good after all!
Monday, May 2, 2011
Justice served, at long last!
I'm over in Germany right now, and just got off the plane when I heard the news that OSAMA BIN LADEN HAS BEEN KILLED. Congratulations to President Obama and to the U.S. Armed Forces for this momentous occasion and tremendous success. There's still a long way to go (there alwasy is when you declare war on common nouns) but a day like today is what we're fighting for, and I am glad to hear that, for today, we are victorious, even as the fight goes on.
My only regret, being in Germany, is that I will miss the Right Wing Media attemtps to somehow credit this to the Republicans, or to Bush. Maybe this is just proof that the Bush Tax worked or something absurd like that. Hey: I'll give them one thing... There was ONE Bush policy that allowed OBAMA to capture/kill Bin Laden...
The IRAQ WAR.
Yep.
Becuase if it weren't for the Iraq War, BUSH would have caught this assmuncher about SIX YEARS AGO!
Now, in all seriousness, too many have died, on ALL sides for me to be makoing light of this. And no one should ever celebrate the death of another human being, even a bloodthrity, psychopathic piece of shit like Osama Bin Laden. I can only hope that the numbers that will inevitably follow in his path, only to find their own meaningless deaths waiting for them, are over-estimated.
But getting back to my previous tone... (sorry, can't help it!)
Hey, REPUBLICANS? SUCK IT, FUCKERS! WE GOT HIM! WE GOT HIM!
And by year's end Obama will have acieved Reagan's elusive victory as well when Kaddafi falls from power in Libya. Two great successes where the Right failed. I can't WAIT!
So if you're a hawk? (Deficit, as I've explained before, or otherwise?) VOTE DEMOCRAT.
THIS is what effective mid-east policy looks like. One country after another overthrowing thier regimes - Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and now SYRIA (!) - and Osama Bin Laden dead and buried.
THAT'S what happens when you don't go decalring unecessary wars.
(And I'll stop acting like a mirror image of the Right now.) (Still... USA! USA! USA!)
My only regret, being in Germany, is that I will miss the Right Wing Media attemtps to somehow credit this to the Republicans, or to Bush. Maybe this is just proof that the Bush Tax worked or something absurd like that. Hey: I'll give them one thing... There was ONE Bush policy that allowed OBAMA to capture/kill Bin Laden...
The IRAQ WAR.
Yep.
Becuase if it weren't for the Iraq War, BUSH would have caught this assmuncher about SIX YEARS AGO!
Now, in all seriousness, too many have died, on ALL sides for me to be makoing light of this. And no one should ever celebrate the death of another human being, even a bloodthrity, psychopathic piece of shit like Osama Bin Laden. I can only hope that the numbers that will inevitably follow in his path, only to find their own meaningless deaths waiting for them, are over-estimated.
But getting back to my previous tone... (sorry, can't help it!)
Hey, REPUBLICANS? SUCK IT, FUCKERS! WE GOT HIM! WE GOT HIM!
And by year's end Obama will have acieved Reagan's elusive victory as well when Kaddafi falls from power in Libya. Two great successes where the Right failed. I can't WAIT!
So if you're a hawk? (Deficit, as I've explained before, or otherwise?) VOTE DEMOCRAT.
THIS is what effective mid-east policy looks like. One country after another overthrowing thier regimes - Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain and now SYRIA (!) - and Osama Bin Laden dead and buried.
THAT'S what happens when you don't go decalring unecessary wars.
(And I'll stop acting like a mirror image of the Right now.) (Still... USA! USA! USA!)
Sunday, May 1, 2011
GOLD STAR AWARDS, April, 2011
As has been becoming an unfortunate tradition lately, here are April's Gold star winners, one day late. We're up to 1962, that's two Gold's and a Silver. PLUS, as my HoF is a living document (just like the U.S. Constitution!) I need to issue a replacement silver for a website that has disappeared and now just hawks crappy T-Shirts. LOL. Any way, here we go!:
The Bob Feller Gold Star #35: No Labels
No Labels describes itself as a non-partisan organization, who’s philosophy is that we need to come together, stop the partisan bickering, and focus on solving the problems that face this country in the way that is the best for… (wait for it…) AMERICA. Imagine that! Now… one MIGHT be tempted to say that this is what President Obama has been trying to do since 1/22/08, and look at what it’s brought us! (And the funny thing? Both conservatives and liberals can say those exact same words, without any sense of irony!) In all seriousness, President Obama’s big mistake was in the assumption that the Right would just come along, if he played nice. Of course… the Democrats ALWAYS play nice. That’s their biggest weakness! And that is the first reason that while No Labels might be non-partisan in their positions, they are inherently Progressive in their philosophy. Partisan bickering only, EVER, helps those who wish to stand in the way of social change. Secondly, what we have now, in Congress? Is exactly what President Washington was warning against when he advised not to create “factions.” (PARTIES, as it played out, but the same thing.) But finally, here is why there message and their movement is so critical. Here is why eliminating the LABELS is inherently, flamingly, screamingly LIBERAL. If you argue with a Liberal, they’ll try to prove you WRONG. Which is a much higher bar than Conservatives set when you argue with them and they try to prove you LIBERAL. See… I don’t self-identify as “Progressive” because I need to cling to an ideology and believe it to be inherently good. I identify that way because 99% of the time, the Progressive (and/or Liberal) position on a given issue just MAKES MORE SENSE, SEEMS MORE PRINCIPLED and is FAR MORE DEFENSIBLE. Not always, granted, but GENERALLY. And whenever hear a Conservative try to defend their position, they start from the assumption that the Conservatives are always right, the Liberals always wrong, and thus identifying the opponent or their position as Liberal is sufficient for chalking up a “win.” Lose the labels? And the Liberal will win the argument 99% of the time. Regardless of what these guys propose on any specific issue, position-wise, ditching political labels can only help Liberals. (Unless we’re wrong!) ;)
The Jackie Robinson Gold Star #36: Project Censored
IIRC, I think it was one of the commenters here that first turned me on to this site. (ClassicLiberal maybe? My apologies, if it was someone else and I forgot.) ANYWAY, for all the accusations of "liberal bias" in the press, and the Himalayan amounts of evidence to the contrary, this site can, once and for all, kill that myth and kill it with fire. Project Censored collects all of the stories that get buried and remain largely untold by the biggest "news" outlets. And surpriiiiise, surpriiiise! 99% of these are stories that are inconvenient to the powers that be! Industry. Corporate Sponsors. Their Political Whores. Their Media whores. The Church. The Right. The Rich. The Powerful. Check them out. What they AREN'T telling you is an order of magnitude more infuriating than the misinformation they ARE.
The Edd Rousch Silver Star #27: eBay
E-BAY?! Are you fucking KIDDING me?!
LOL. No. I'm not. Of all the dot-com's to come out of the 1990's tech "bubble" - and in all truth, it wasn't a bubble at all - the one that was the biggest game-changer, IMHO, was eBay. And I can hear it now... All the whining about fees, and the effect it's had of the price of collectibles, and how big a rip-off it is, and how much they completely suck, in general....
Fuck all that. I've been an eBay junkie for YEARS, both buying and selling. And you know what? I've yet to have a single negative experience that wasn't my own fault. You read that right.
And before we go arguing about their policies, fee structure, service, etc... Let's realize what eBay actually DOES: It's bring entrepreneurialism to every single person in America. (In the WORLD, really.) If you've got something to sell? You've got the entire market - the U.S., North America, the Western Hemisphere and the Entire WORLD at your disposal. Call it this liberal's way fo showing his love for the truly free market, but eBay has changed the world.
SO to all you "feeBay" haters? Fuck off. I LOVE eBay. (How's THAT for going against the status quo? LOL) :P :P :P :P :P :P
OK, and since "Item not as described" is now completely defunct (and hawking crappy T-Shirts, the last time I checked) I will need to re-issue Fred Clarke's Silver Star #6. So, in an effort to keep my HoF remotely relevant, here is the NEW...
Fred Clarke's Silver Star #6: Brightest
If you're getting the idea that I read a LOT of webcomics, you're right. I do. And I do for one simple reason: THEY'RE GOOD. Brightest tells the story of Charlene (Charlie) an out-of-work, overweight, relationship-challenged, possible lesbian and the trals and tribulations in her life. In addition to an awesomely quirky art-style, it is a poignant, sometimes painful, at times ironically funny story that avoids falling into stereotypes. I think what I like the most about the main character is that her characteristics do not DEFINE her. They do not LIMIT her persona. She's overweight, yes. But she doesn't obsess over it. There none of the constant, neurotic dieting or sweating over her appearance that you might get in another work with a heavier heroine. Nor is her self-esteem tied up in her weight. (No, she has low self esteem for 100 other reasons! LOL.) And also, while she's a Lesbian (or might be) this is also not the defining characteristic or the character or the comic. Most of the time, the conflict over her sexuality never enters into the story. And when it DOES? It handled so... realistically. And what results is an amazingly HUMAN character. Flawed, neurotic, but completely FAMILIAR - we ALL know someone like this, and sometimes we ARE that person! Anyway, I've really enjoyed the ride so far, and as always, I recommend reading it from the beginning.
The Bob Feller Gold Star #35: No Labels
No Labels describes itself as a non-partisan organization, who’s philosophy is that we need to come together, stop the partisan bickering, and focus on solving the problems that face this country in the way that is the best for… (wait for it…) AMERICA. Imagine that! Now… one MIGHT be tempted to say that this is what President Obama has been trying to do since 1/22/08, and look at what it’s brought us! (And the funny thing? Both conservatives and liberals can say those exact same words, without any sense of irony!) In all seriousness, President Obama’s big mistake was in the assumption that the Right would just come along, if he played nice. Of course… the Democrats ALWAYS play nice. That’s their biggest weakness! And that is the first reason that while No Labels might be non-partisan in their positions, they are inherently Progressive in their philosophy. Partisan bickering only, EVER, helps those who wish to stand in the way of social change. Secondly, what we have now, in Congress? Is exactly what President Washington was warning against when he advised not to create “factions.” (PARTIES, as it played out, but the same thing.) But finally, here is why there message and their movement is so critical. Here is why eliminating the LABELS is inherently, flamingly, screamingly LIBERAL. If you argue with a Liberal, they’ll try to prove you WRONG. Which is a much higher bar than Conservatives set when you argue with them and they try to prove you LIBERAL. See… I don’t self-identify as “Progressive” because I need to cling to an ideology and believe it to be inherently good. I identify that way because 99% of the time, the Progressive (and/or Liberal) position on a given issue just MAKES MORE SENSE, SEEMS MORE PRINCIPLED and is FAR MORE DEFENSIBLE. Not always, granted, but GENERALLY. And whenever hear a Conservative try to defend their position, they start from the assumption that the Conservatives are always right, the Liberals always wrong, and thus identifying the opponent or their position as Liberal is sufficient for chalking up a “win.” Lose the labels? And the Liberal will win the argument 99% of the time. Regardless of what these guys propose on any specific issue, position-wise, ditching political labels can only help Liberals. (Unless we’re wrong!) ;)
The Jackie Robinson Gold Star #36: Project Censored
IIRC, I think it was one of the commenters here that first turned me on to this site. (ClassicLiberal maybe? My apologies, if it was someone else and I forgot.) ANYWAY, for all the accusations of "liberal bias" in the press, and the Himalayan amounts of evidence to the contrary, this site can, once and for all, kill that myth and kill it with fire. Project Censored collects all of the stories that get buried and remain largely untold by the biggest "news" outlets. And surpriiiiise, surpriiiise! 99% of these are stories that are inconvenient to the powers that be! Industry. Corporate Sponsors. Their Political Whores. Their Media whores. The Church. The Right. The Rich. The Powerful. Check them out. What they AREN'T telling you is an order of magnitude more infuriating than the misinformation they ARE.
The Edd Rousch Silver Star #27: eBay
E-BAY?! Are you fucking KIDDING me?!
LOL. No. I'm not. Of all the dot-com's to come out of the 1990's tech "bubble" - and in all truth, it wasn't a bubble at all - the one that was the biggest game-changer, IMHO, was eBay. And I can hear it now... All the whining about fees, and the effect it's had of the price of collectibles, and how big a rip-off it is, and how much they completely suck, in general....
Fuck all that. I've been an eBay junkie for YEARS, both buying and selling. And you know what? I've yet to have a single negative experience that wasn't my own fault. You read that right.
And before we go arguing about their policies, fee structure, service, etc... Let's realize what eBay actually DOES: It's bring entrepreneurialism to every single person in America. (In the WORLD, really.) If you've got something to sell? You've got the entire market - the U.S., North America, the Western Hemisphere and the Entire WORLD at your disposal. Call it this liberal's way fo showing his love for the truly free market, but eBay has changed the world.
SO to all you "feeBay" haters? Fuck off. I LOVE eBay. (How's THAT for going against the status quo? LOL) :P :P :P :P :P :P
OK, and since "Item not as described" is now completely defunct (and hawking crappy T-Shirts, the last time I checked) I will need to re-issue Fred Clarke's Silver Star #6. So, in an effort to keep my HoF remotely relevant, here is the NEW...
Fred Clarke's Silver Star #6: Brightest
If you're getting the idea that I read a LOT of webcomics, you're right. I do. And I do for one simple reason: THEY'RE GOOD. Brightest tells the story of Charlene (Charlie) an out-of-work, overweight, relationship-challenged, possible lesbian and the trals and tribulations in her life. In addition to an awesomely quirky art-style, it is a poignant, sometimes painful, at times ironically funny story that avoids falling into stereotypes. I think what I like the most about the main character is that her characteristics do not DEFINE her. They do not LIMIT her persona. She's overweight, yes. But she doesn't obsess over it. There none of the constant, neurotic dieting or sweating over her appearance that you might get in another work with a heavier heroine. Nor is her self-esteem tied up in her weight. (No, she has low self esteem for 100 other reasons! LOL.) And also, while she's a Lesbian (or might be) this is also not the defining characteristic or the character or the comic. Most of the time, the conflict over her sexuality never enters into the story. And when it DOES? It handled so... realistically. And what results is an amazingly HUMAN character. Flawed, neurotic, but completely FAMILIAR - we ALL know someone like this, and sometimes we ARE that person! Anyway, I've really enjoyed the ride so far, and as always, I recommend reading it from the beginning.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Texas? This is why!
Apparently, the last time the State of Texas tried to legalize and legislate bigotry and stand in the way of social progress, there was a loophole that spared at least one group. Well, seeing as how Texas has never been a State to allow a minority group to go unpunnished, it is now a top priority for them to fix this oversight.
Texas? This is why the rest of America hates you. Seriously.
And Conservatives? This is why you suck. Seriously.
All people are created equal, huh? One vote, one voice, huh? Freedom and small government, huh? (That's the BIGGEST joke with the RW fools!) I just have one thing to say to all these flag-wavers on the Right who continuously wipe their collective, ignorant, backwards, back-sides with our Constitution:
GO FUCK YOURSELVES, YOU HYPOCRITICAL, SELF-RIGHTEOUS, UN-AMERICAN SCUMBAGS!
And... that's all I have to say!
Texas? This is why the rest of America hates you. Seriously.
And Conservatives? This is why you suck. Seriously.
All people are created equal, huh? One vote, one voice, huh? Freedom and small government, huh? (That's the BIGGEST joke with the RW fools!) I just have one thing to say to all these flag-wavers on the Right who continuously wipe their collective, ignorant, backwards, back-sides with our Constitution:
GO FUCK YOURSELVES, YOU HYPOCRITICAL, SELF-RIGHTEOUS, UN-AMERICAN SCUMBAGS!
And... that's all I have to say!
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Interesting Article, needs a better title...
Sorry for all the cracked.com article lately. The real world is just so frustrating & depression that, yes, I've spent most of my time reading a comedy site that specializes in dick jokes. BUT... They do do a good job writing pieces that are political in nature, although they (1) hardly ever realize it, and (2) IMHO, try VERY hard not to be liberal. (Which makes them almost as bad as the MSM, but Cracked at least does some actual... what's the word? Oh yeah: RESEARCH!)
Anyway, here's a really good piece on environmentalism, or rather, it sounds that way from the title: The 5 Biggest Backfires in the History of Disaster Relief. BUT, if they had any real balls, and weren't so afraid of being accused of being liberal (or just embracing the liberalism that lies right beneath the surface of 99% of what they do, even though they can't bring themselves to just come out and admit it) they might called it: Four Ways Conservatives and Industry Fucked Up the Environment Even Worse, and what Happens when one Liberal Starts Acting Like a Conservative.
Or maybe: What Happens when Conservatives do a Half-Assed Job of Being Liberal and when a Liberal Out-Conservatives the Conservatives.
Read it with one of THOSE (far more accurate) titles in mind, and enjoy. The moral: Industrialism, Unilateralism and Conservatism SUCKS, and people really need to start LISTENING to environmentalists.
Anyway, here's a really good piece on environmentalism, or rather, it sounds that way from the title: The 5 Biggest Backfires in the History of Disaster Relief. BUT, if they had any real balls, and weren't so afraid of being accused of being liberal (or just embracing the liberalism that lies right beneath the surface of 99% of what they do, even though they can't bring themselves to just come out and admit it) they might called it: Four Ways Conservatives and Industry Fucked Up the Environment Even Worse, and what Happens when one Liberal Starts Acting Like a Conservative.
Or maybe: What Happens when Conservatives do a Half-Assed Job of Being Liberal and when a Liberal Out-Conservatives the Conservatives.
Read it with one of THOSE (far more accurate) titles in mind, and enjoy. The moral: Industrialism, Unilateralism and Conservatism SUCKS, and people really need to start LISTENING to environmentalists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)