Irony

This is rich. Despicable, loathsome hate-monger Debbie Schlussel has accused Sean Hannity of sexual harassment.  I obviously wasn't there, and don't know Sean or Debbie, but obviously he is guilty. Because, come on! But anyway, it raises the question: is she hoping for sympathy? Are we supposed to feel bad for her? Because, normally I would feel really bad for any woman who had to be in the same room with Sean Hannity, but when someone has made a name for herself with posts like these:

July 1, 2013, - 2:52 pm

No Tears for Raped Dutch Reporter in Egypt – This is Islam; This is Islamic Democracy & Liberation

I really couldn’t care less for a reporter who goes into Islamic countries–where we know Muslims regard women as chattel and living sex toys–and expects them to behave like Western gentleman. You go to Egypt expecting that, as you cheer on the Muslims there, I shed no tears for what happens to you. That’s the breaks when you take your chances and go to Egypt. The Western women who get raped there–including Logan and this reporter–are liberal moronettes who think they are doing G-d’s work cheering on these savages and pretending they aren’t savages, but “democrats.” Then, when they get “liberated” by these “democrats,” I’m supposed to feel sorry for them? Hilarious.

I gotta say, I'm giving Hannity a pass on this one. You go to FOX expecting the animals there to behave like gentlemen, I shed no tears for what happens to you there. That's the breaks when you take your chances and go to FOX News.

On Friday February 11, the day Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak stepped down, CBS correspondent Lara Logan was covering the jubilation in Tahrir Square for a “60 Minutes” story. . . 
In the crush of the mob, she was separated from her crew. She was surrounded and suffered a brutal and sustained sexual assault and beating before being saved by a group of women and an estimated 20 Egyptian soldiers.. . . She is currently in the hospital recovering.

Lara Logan was among the chief cheerleaders of this “revolution” by animals. Now she knows what Islamic revolution is really all about. . . So sad, too bad, Lara. No one told her to go there. She knew the risks. And she should have known what Islam is all about. Now she knows.

Too bad so sad Debbie Schlussel. No one told you to go to the FOX studios. You knew the risks. And you should have known what FOX is all about. Now you know.

For the record, this blog does NOT condone sexual harassment in the workplace or anywhere else. Except in the case of someone who said that the brutal sexual assault of another reporter "warmed her heart." In that case, if Sean Hannity invited her to his hotel room and then stopped having her on as a guest when she declined, that really feels a bit like poetic justice. But Sean Hannity can still go to Hell.

It Must Be Hard to be a FOX News host.

It must be difficult working for FOX. It's got to be a tough tightrope to walk, being racist enough to keep your octogenarian Archie Bunker core audience happy, but leaving yourself enough plausible deniability to be able to claim "I wasn't being racist!" "Hey, all I said was that the guy was a ghetto thug from the 'hood who was probably smoking crack. I never said anything about him being black!"

Megyn Kelly Defends Texas Cop: 'The Girl Was No Saint, Either'

 Oh, fer fuck sake!

She was "no saint?" Since when is that the point? Since when is being a "saint" a pre-condition for expecting decent treatment from police?

 

Hey, he isn't St Abban of Murnevin - Get him!!!

 “The girl was no saint, either,” Kelly said of Dajerria Becton. “He had told her to leave, and she continued to linger. When a cop tells you to leave, get out.” 

Oh. Oh, she lingered? SHE LINGERED? Why didn't you say so? Throw the book at her. Lingering! What is wrong with the youth of today?

Kelly also told her guests, former Los Angeles Police Detective Mark Furhman and radio host Richard Fowler, that the incident had been turned “into a race thing,” and wondered whether it was justified.

Mark Furhman? You're asking Mark Fucking Furhman about "race things?"

 Um, I gotta say. . . if you have Mark Fucking Furhman as a contributor on your network, you're not even trying to veil your racism anymore.

Making Things Worse

So Megyn Kelly decided that it would be a good idea to have the molestation-enablers, Jim-Bob and Michelle Duggar on for a friendly interview. I've embedded the video below, if you have the stomach for it. I didn't. I made it to about 1:20 before I had to turn it off, smash the monitor, or throw up. I turned it off.  Listening to this mother who clearly feels like the real victims here are herself, Jim-Bob and Josh was just too sickening.
Sample quote "The one ray of hope was Josh has a tender conscience and came to us himself."

 

Fortunately, Think Progress has someone with the iron constitution to view this sick trainwreck and report it to us.

Breaking his silence on Fox News, Jim Bob Duggar repeatedly minimized the actions of his son Josh, who sexually molested several of the Duggar daughters.
“He had gone in and just basically touched them over their clothes while they were sleeping. They didn’t even know he had done it,” Jim Bob said. Later Jim Bob admitted there “were a couple incidents where he touched them under their clothes, but it was like a few seconds.”

 Holy frickin Christmas cake!

If you're trying to salvage your family's reputation, this is pretty much the exact wrongest way to go about it.You could not show more callous disconcern for your daughters, who were victimized by your son under your roof. You're really going to try to minimize this? Oh, they were asleep, they didn't even know it happened. Because someone suddenly stroking your genutals is not something that would wake a person up.
Oh, and it doesn't really count because it was "over the clothes." He never , ever put his hands under their clothes. well. . . .

Hardly Everrrrrr!!!

I'd love to know how the Duggar parents would react if one of their daughters came home from a date and said "I got felt up, but don't worry, it was over the clothes, so I'm still pure!" I'm guessing that loophole doesn't apply to consensual feel-copping.

He emphasized that “this was not rape or anything like that.” 

  

Right, it wasn't "Rape" rape! What's the big deal?

Throughout the interview, Jim Bob returned to these themes. He emphasized again and again that some of the instances occured while his daughters were sleeping and the molestation occured over their clothes. (At the same time he acknowledged that, in other cases, his daughters were awake and groped underneath their clothes.) Jim Bob also attempted to characterize Josh’s behavior as commonplace. “We talked to other parents and different ones since then, a lot of families have said that they’ve had similar things happen in their families,” he said.

   

Seriously? This is a common occurrence in your circles?
How could that possibly. . . oh, right. Weirdo religious cult. I forgot.

“He was still a kid, you know, and he was still a juvenile. He wasn’t an adult,” Jim Bob explained. He also sought to deflect blame from himself. Jim Bob told Megyn Kelly that “kids will make their own choices.”

Right, of course. That's the usual conservative approach to kids who commit crimes. Only a lad, you really can't blame him. . . Oh no, wait. The conservative answer to juvenile offenders is "lock 'em up and throw away the key, unless you think this might warrant the death penalty, 'cuz that could work too."

It's almost like there are two sets of standards for folks like this.
Drug offenders should do hard time, except for Rush Limbaugh who probably had a good reason for needing oxy.
Unwed teen moms are destroying the country, except Bristol Palin who's a role model for girls everywhere!
Sex offenders should be punished to the full extent of the law. Unless they've asked God for forgiveness and it wasn't really, ya know, "rape" exactly. I mean, hey, it's not like he tried to marry a dude or something!

Of course, being a right-wing theocrat in America means never taking any responsibility for your own actions!

Here's the video, if you're interested. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Oh, P.S. I'm aware that "disconcern" is probably not a real word. But I like it, so it stays.
Hey, Shakespeare made up words all the time, ya gotta love it!

The War on Thanksgiving.

About this time each year, the FOX crowd starts trotting out their "War on Christmas" bs machine.



 Oh, they will fight to the death to defend Christmas from the imagined "attacks" it faces from people who, um. . . are willing to acknowledge that some people celebrate other holidays?

Or folks who want to maintain the separation of Church and State?
Oh no,  wait, I mean INFIDELS!!!! AMERICA-HATING INFIDELS!!!!!


And every Spring they pretend there's a "War on Easter" to be fought.

Heck, they've even discovered a "War on Halloween"



Even though the only people who tend to object to Halloween are evangelical Christians who object to the holiday's pagan roots and scary "occultic" overtones. In other words, FOX news viewers.

But what about Thanksgiving?

Because Thanksgiving is actually under attack by the obscene spectacle known as "Black Friday." People are actually having their Thanksgivings taken away from them by stores who now not only insist that their employees be at work before the crack of dawn the day after, but now don't even close for Thanksgiving itself.

Where is the outrage on the right?

Why does the "pro-family" crowd raise no objection to people being deprived of family time in the service of feeding America's frenzy of acquisitiveness and materialism?

What's a bigger affront to holiday tradition, a cashier wishing you "Happy Holidays" or having a Thanksgiving that goes like this:  "Gee, Grandma, everything smells so good, you've really outdone yourself this year. . . well, got to go sell some cheap electronics or I'll be unemployed. See you at Christmas hopefully!"

 

See you later. Those robot dogs aren't going to sell themselves!

Every year it gets worse and worse. The entire concept of "Black Friday" is grotesque enough to begin with. Once the term "Black Friday" went from being backroom retailer jargon to part of the everyday lexicon of normal people, we lost a part of our national soul. Once flyers began proudly announcing "Black Friday Sales!" we as a society should have stood up and said "No! We will not create a holiday based on celebrating your corporate profitability!" But we didn't. We allowed this indignity to infect our culture and it quickly spread like a cancer.

First it spread to Midnight of Thanksgiving day. Which of course meant that store employees were forced to leave their families by 10 or 11 that evening.

Then the stores began opening earlier and earlier Thursday evening until they got to the point where many stay open the entire holiday. As if it were just another day to make sales.

So where are the FOX News special reports on the "War on Thanksgiving?" Why does the one holiday that is actually under attack not see the same umbrage raised  as those holidays whose attacks are pure fiction?

Could it be because this war is being waged by large powerful corporations in the interest of increased profits? Instead of by "secular humanists" or whichever right-wing bogeymen are launching the imaginary wars on other holidays? Nah. . . couldn't be.

Won't Someone Please Think Of The Children?

A couple of days ago, a Pew Research study came out stating that Four in ten mothers are either the sole or primary source of income for their families, a new high. Unsurprisingly, right-wing boys lost their shit!

Erick Erickson, the man who's so voll von der Scheiße * they named him twice, went on FOX to say this:

When you look at biology, look at the natural world, the roles of a male and female in society, and the other animals, the male typically is the dominant role. The female, it's not antithesis, or it's not competing, it's a complimentary role. We as people in a smart society have lost the ability to have complimentary relationships in nuclear families, and it's tearing us apart.

It's interesting that righties who insist that evolution is a myth and that people have nothing in common with animals because we were made separately, out of mud, or out of a rib, to be the spitting image of the Almighty suddenly want us to model our relationships after lions or warthogs or bonobos or whatever if it suits their argument.

Then Erickson went to his own ridiculous website "RedState" to double down on his bullshit.

The Truth May Hurt, But Is Not Mean

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  May 30th, 2013 at 02:57 PM

Many feminist and emo lefties have their panties in a wad over my statements in the past 24 hours about families. I said, in a statement reflecting the view of three quarters of those surveyed in a Pew Research Center poll, that more women being the primary or sole breadwinners in families is harmful to raising children.

Gee, why would anyone be put off by that? All I said was that 40% of families are harming their children because the mothers are too successful. I mean, that's just basic science!

Devestating rhetorical technique, by the way. "emo lefties," "panties in a wad?" You must have been the star of your school's debate team! Also, I assume you just wanted any excuse to type the word "panties," after which you copied and pasted the word into Google Image Search and then resumed your column a few hours later.

And what research did Erickson cite to back up his claim that women making more money is harmful to children?

This result came from a survey that found “nearly four in 10 families with children under the age of 18 are now headed by women who are the sole or primary breadwinners for their families.”

Wow, that's quite a leap! The study says that 4/10 families with kids are headed by women who are the primary earners, therefore, ipso facto, women being the primary earners is harmful? I don't even get it.
Maybe if I click on the link Erickson provided, I can read the entire study and see what it says about the harmful effects of mothers having good jobs. . . no. No, the link goes to a Washington Post article about the study, not to the study itself. The Post article does contain this bit of pseudo-info:

But the Pew Research report shows that Americans are decidedly ambivalent about mothers who work outside the home. Three-fourths of those surveyed say these mothers make raising children harder, and half worry that it’s bad for marriages.

Well, if Americans are ambivalent about something, that's pretty much scientific proof that it's evil!

I also noted that the left, which tells us all the time we’re just another animal in the animal kingdom, is rather anti-science when it comes to this. In many, many animal species, the male and female of the species play complementary roles, with the male dominant in strength and protection and the female dominant in nurture. It’s the female who tames the male beast.

Hmm, must be a bachelor!

 

 

Nobody tames wild animals! Hence the descriptive title "wild animals." Take bears, for instance. Mother bears have to keep their cubs away from adult males because the adult males see them as future competition and will kill them before they get big enough to be a threat. If we're going to model our child-rearing after wild animals, should we go bear?

 

You never go back!

 

 

 

Then it really gets good when Erick tries to seem empathetic.

Not everyone has the luxury of raising their children in a traditional manner and the rest of us have an obligation to help and support those in unfortunate situations.

COMMUNIST!

Likewise, there is nothing wrong with mothers having jobs. There is nothing wrong with women being breadwinners. Sometimes they have to by necessity.

Gee, it's awfully gracious of you to make such a generous allowance!

Life is terribly unfair. Sometimes a parent dies. Sometimes a parent is an abusive ass. There are unfortunate exceptions. But we should not kid ourselves or scream so loudly in politically correct outrage to drown the truth — kids most likely will do best in households where they have a mom at home nurturing them while dad is out bringing home the bacon.

And your evidence to support this thesis?

As Pew found, “Three-fourths of those surveyed say these mothers make raising children harder, and half worry that it’s bad for marriages. About half of those surveyed felt it was better if mothers stayed home with young children. In contrast, 8 percent thought it was better if fathers did.”

Well, that's pretty convincing. Of course, a third of Americans believe in UFOs,  about 30% believe in Bigfoot, and 17% believe that Obama is a Muslim, but still. . . if half worry that it might be bad for marriages, well it's hard to argue with that!
And yes, the link is again to the Washington Post article, not the actual Pew report, which it's safe to assume Erickson has not read.




Here is Erickson and the rest of the He-Man Woman-Haters Club discussing mommies with jobs:






More right-wing boys with their feelings hurt tomorrow!


* It means "full of shit" in German

Sarah Palin Pretends She Didn't Get Fired

Sarah Palin on Fox News Exit: We Can't Just Preach to the Choir

Pictured: The Choir.

Palin tells Stephen K. Bannon, producer and director of the 2011 Palin documentary "The Undefeated," that she and other "believers in American exceptionalism" need to reach beyond the converted to spread their message. . .
Asked what's next following her split with Fox News, where she served as a contributor until last week, Palin offered, "Short term: I encourage others to step out in faith, jump out of the comfort zone and broaden our reach as believers in American exceptionalism.
"That means broadening our audience," she continued." I'm taking my own advice here as I free up opportunities to share more broadly the message of the beauty of freedom and the imperative of defending our republic and restoring this most exceptional nation. 

Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Yes, Sarah, that's exactly what's going on. You're going rogue again!

Sarah Palin was dismissed by FOX News, probably because her diminishing fan club was  no longer wotrth putting up with her diva bullshit. She can pretend all she wants that she's leaving to pursue a wider audience, but like every executive who leaves the company to "spend more time with his family," Sarah Palin was shown the door. Like every newly single person who says "we decided that we should take a break, give each other some space," Sarah Palin was dumped by Roger Ailes. Even FOX doesn't give a shit what Sarah Palin thinks anymore.

John Stossel continues to be the worst excuse for a human being on the planet. (Now that Andrew Breitbart is dead)

John Stossel just might be the biggest bag of douche on the entire FOX payroll.

In praise of 'price gouging'

By John Stossel

Published November 01, 2012

FoxNews.com

Because for some reason, price gouging has gotten a bad reputation somehow?

Desperate New Jersey drivers wait in long lines to buy gasoline. One line was two miles long
The media blame “a lack of electricity”

Why the quotes? Is there some doubt as to whether there really is a lack of electricity in Jersey? I don't know, there's no explanation given for the quotes.

The media blame “a lack of electricity” and report that “Governor Christie has acted to boost supplies of gasoline…by directing Treasury officials to waive licensing requirements that affect merchants’ ability to buy fuel from out-of-state suppliers.”

Ordinarily, removing any sort of licensing requirements gives John Stossel a boner for which he needs to seek medical attention, so what is he going to find to complain about in this scenario?

That would help, but Christie would help more if he could suspend New Jersey’s foolish law forbidding price increases of more than 10% during an “emergency,” and if he’d apologize for bragging that the state will crack down on price “gouging!”  

 

Allowing gas companies to jack up their prices would help. . . help what, exactly?

Complaining about greedy profiteers is probably politically smart. But if you're one of the people the law "protects," you won't fare as well.

As well as what? You won't fare as well as. . . ? How is that the end of the paragraph? Did you ever take high school English?

What politicians call “gouging” is just the free market.

 

Holy cow! John Stossel just said something that's sort of true. Gouging isn't actually the "free market," but it is the free market that allows suppliers to engage in price gouging. Now, to a normal person, that would be an indication that maybe the "free market" isn't such a great idea, but if you're someone like John Stossel, well, you're not going to go around thinking logically!

See, if you're a free marketeer like Stossel, you begin with the conclusion that the free market is inherently good, then make everything else fit that conclusion. So if price gouging is a symptom of the free market, and we know that the free market is entirely good and awesome in every way, then ipso facto presto chango, price gouging can't possibly be bad.

It's like when a fundamentalist is confronted with something unsettling in his religious scripture. Instead of thinking "hmm, maybe I can't take the entire book literally," he is forced to come to the conclusion that  whatever it is that seems disturbing, like the Bible justifying slavery, or God ordering the Isrealites to kill every living creature in the city of Jericho (aka genocide) must somehow be good because otherwise his whole world view falls apart.

What politicians call “gouging” is just the free market. When markets are allowed to work their magic, lines disappear.  The high price is a big flag planted in the ground that says, “Hey, come over here and make money.”

You know, any economic philosophy that relies on "magic" is probably not all that sound. 

 

 

 

  

Economics!

But yeah, if the price goes high enough, lines would disappear. Because most people wouldn't be able to afford super-expensive gasoline. But how does that help anybody?

Today, some car owners wait in line just to top off their tanks. If gas stations could raise prices, many of those drivers would wait, and drive less.  Drivers who really need gas would be able to get it.    At the same time, entrepreneurs would rush gasoline to gas stations that have the highest prices.   The lines would quickly vanish, and prices would come back down.

 

Really? People are waiting in two-mile-long lines just to top off their tanks? Look at the picture that accompanies your column:

 

See anyone "topping off?" People appear to be buying gasoline to run generators, not cars. These people are not buying gas on a whim. They are buying gasoline to be able to get back to some semblance of a normal home life. How much do you think the price of gas should be raised to get these folks to forgo that gallon or two that will power their kids' nightlight or provide a little heat, or refrigeration? 

And if I'm getting your theory, the idea is to raise prices to lower demand which would cause supply to increase (somehow) which would lower prices. If that convoluted ridiculous theory worked, we end up right back where we started. So what's the point? 

Remember The 1970s “gas crisis?”  The media claimed it was caused by a lack of gasoline.  It wasn’t.  It was caused by President Nixon’s price controls.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure the gas crisis was caused by the OPEC oil embargo. And I'm pretty sure that once Venezuela broke the embargo, gas prices came way back down again, just in time for Ronald reagen to take credit. Of course, I was a child in the 1970's, but I'm pretty sure I have a better understanding than you do, you ridiculous libertarian hack. I mean, if Nixon's price controls were so onerous, how is it that the price of a gallon of gas managed to skyrocket?

 Remember the lines in the Soviet Union?   Most shortages are caused by politicians interfering with the market.

That one example proves it! Also, New Jersey having a law against price gouging? Yeah, totally  like the Soviet Union's complete governmental control of every aspect of their economy. Exactly the same thing.

Here's the real question: What is the best way to help people after a disaster?

Yes, obviously helping people is your main concern. Your such a caring individual!

What is the best way to help people after a disaster?Any number of services -- roofing, for example, carpentry, tree removal, and gasoline -- are in overwhelming demand.  If this were a totalitarian country, government could just order gasoline tankers roofers, carpenters, etc., to travel to New Jersey. But in a free society, entrepreneurs must be persuaded to leave their homes and families and drive from say, Texas, to the East Coast. If they can't make more money in New Jersey, why make the trip?

Um, I'm pretty sure that they can make more money in New Jersey because there are so many more potential customers there? Whereas in Texas, a contractor might bid on a job and have three other guys under-bid him so he has to lower his price so much that it's hardly worth doing? But in a disaster area, people don't have time to entertain multiple bids and it's either their insurance company or FEMA paying the bill so they don't feel like they need to bargain all that aggressively? I don't know, I'm not a contractor.

Some want to be heroic, but we can't expect enough heroes to fill the need.  Most travel for the same reason most Americans work: to make money. Most tradesmen will go to a disaster area only if it wins him higher pay than he would get in his hometown.  
Yet if he charges enough to justify his venture, he's likely to be condemned morally or legally by the very people he's trying to help.

Trying to help?  You just said, just one sentence ago, that the only reason he's going there is to make more money. And according to you, this is perfectly fine, and he has no obligation to be heroic, so why one sentence later, do you have to paint him as making some sort of noble sacrifice? Oh, he only wanted to help these poor people! You know, assuming he can make more money that way. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with wanting to make more money, but you can't have it both ways!

 

Of course I can! I'm on FOX!

 

 

They just don't understand basic economics. Force prices down, and you keep suppliers out.

Okay, that's probably true, but that's not what's happening. Chris Christie isn't forcing prices down. He's just not allowing them to go up as much as they might otherwise. Not only are prices not being pushed down, they are allowed to be pushed UP an extra 10%.

It's price "gougers" who bring the water, ship the gasoline, fix the roof, and rebuild cities. You might not believe me but will you believe Nobel Prize-winning economists Gary Becker, Vernon Smith and Milton Friedman? All three have said “ gouging” is good. Milton Friedman said, “price ‘gougers’ save lives.”

Well, I don't know anything about Becker or Smith, but I do know that Milton Friedman has been proven completely dead wrong about everything. I know supply-siders like to pretend that his theories have some sort of magic in them, but the Reagen deficits are really all the evidence we need that Friedman was full of shit.

God damn it, John Stossel is a piece of shit. What kind of a human being looks at the devastation on the East Coast and says, hmm, those people are really suffering. If only amoral companies were allowed to extract more money from these desperate people? How does someone like Stossel sleep at night?

Okay, Who's Paying for This?

Because there's no way Pam Geller has enough money for this, right? Please, God?



These horrible, blatantly racist ads have been put up in NYC subway stations by Pam Geller and some bullshit organization she runs. They had to sue the NY transit authority to make them put up these ads. But that's got to be some pretty expensive ad-space. I hate to think that this nut is making enough money from her retarded website and frequent appearances on FOX to be able to afford this ad buy.

**Sigh**  God Damn it, CNN!

This woman's entire Raison d'etre is that she hates Muslims and Arabs and Arab Muslims. 

 

How much money can you really make from a website that just every day posts "Damn Muslims, they're horrible!" every day? And how much can she be getting paid to show up on FOX every now and again?

 

Oh, God Damn It! Was it at least Morning Joe?

Is that why I'm not making any money on this blog? Because I don't call Muslims "animals" and "savages?"  I'm certainly willing to cal Pam Geller an animal. Not a nice animal like a baby deer or a puppy or something, maybe a loathsome serpent, or a crocodile or something? A Naked mole rat? 

 

Yeah, that seems about right. Pamela Geller is the Naked Mole Rat  of political commentators. 

Oh, God, now I'm going to get traffic from the kind of people who do Google searches for "Pam Geller + Naked."

Is FOX Even Trying Anymore?

Because this is pathetic!





I don't know what is worse, that FOX thinks two little girls with a lemonade stand is somehow proving some sort of point, or that the little girls' parents are willing to trot them out on TV as right-wing stooges, repeating bs talking points that they don't really even  understand. Or maybe the fact that their parents apparently think that it's just adorable for their little daughters to refer to them as "investors" and claim that their lemonade recipe is "proprietary." Yeah, that's the worst part. Oh, look honey. Our little darlings are already talking like little business school douchebags. Isn't that sweet?

If by "sweet" you mean "sad and creepy," then yeah. Totally sweet!

And I swear to God, no one has ever been worse at any job than Brian Kilmeade is at his.

Kilmeade began his segment with the Sutton sisters by playing a clip of Obama saying that business owners "didn't build" their businesses. . .
"These two girls beg to differ," the Fox News host claimed. "They built their lemonade business, not only without government help, but without any help. . . Who helped you start this business?"

You can't say that they didn't have any help and then ask who helped? You just can't be that ridiculous. Except on FOX I guess.

"Clara, how do you feel about the president saying that you needed help to start this business?" Kilmeade asked. "And just speak from within." [Because, yeah, a 7-year-old totally understands what that means!]
"I would say that's rude because we worked very hard to build this business -- but we did have help," Clara insisted. 

So. . . . it's rude to say that you needed help, but you did have help? I know you're just repeating what your idiot parents are telling you to say, but even if a 7-year-old doesn't see the gap in logic, Kilmeade is a fucking grown man. How does he not say, "oh, now I see why we shouldn't have 7-year-olds making our political points for us" and just throw to commercial? 

Four-year-old Eliza added: "My brother does things he likes to do, and he says, 'Car, car' every time. Every time he sees a car!"

You mean a car driving on a government-built road, pulling up to the government-built curb to buy some of your lemonade from the stand that your "investors" helped you build? My God, what rugged individualists!

Tucker Carlson doesn't seem to realize what network he's on

Because he says this on FOX:




How do you sit there in the FOX studio and wonder why don't conservatives start their own media outlets?

Oh, right. These people live in an alternate universe in which President Obama is a bomb-throwing radical leftist and conservatives have no voice.

Fox reporter says dumbest thing ever about global warming

(via C&L)

Fox Business reporter Tracy Byrnes says that climate change is overblown because the temperature of the Earth "basically hasn't changed much since the Ice Age."



Seriously, the temperature hasn't changed much since the ice age. The freakin Ice Age! Which is why much of North America is still covered by glaciers. And why Wooly Mammoth burgers are one of our most popular foods.

 

A typical Spring day here in Atlanta

 Does this idiot really not understand what "Ice Age" means?

 

Try renting this. It should be about your speed.

 

How to tell when you've hit rock-bottom of patheticness. . .

. . .When you get pwned by Miss Piggy

Did Rupert Murdoch Buy National Geographic?

Because otherwise, I can't think of any reason why they would be airing "George W. Bush: the 9/11 Interview."

Is there some chance that they think he's going to suddenly be honest?

Look at this clip:


First clip from Nat Geo's "George W. Bush: The 9/11 Interview" from Realscreen magazine on Vimeo.


He starts out by lying, saying that he never wanted to be a wartime president, when we know that his adminsitration had been drawing up invasion plans for Iraq before 9/11, just waiting for a pretext.

Then he tells this bizzarre story about being told that the first plane had hit the WTC. He says that he thought it was a light aircraft and that it must have been some sort of weather-related accident or something. Had he not already been informed that 4 very large airplanes had been hijacked that morning? And when his aides told him about the crash, could they really have been that vague about the details? Would they really not have said "um, no, Mr. President, this was a fucking 747 and it looks to have been intentional?" Why would he have assumed that this was a minor incident? If a "light aircraft" had accisentally crashed into a building, that doesn't seem like something that would merit alerting the POTUS. And if he really did think that this was some sad, but minor accident, why instruct his staff to send all possible help to New York? If this was a light aircraft crashing in Manhattan, the FDNY would have been perfectly capable of handling it.

Bush's negligence on Sept. 11 was absolutely inexcusable and unforgivable. Instead of telling his staff to send help and then walking into a classroom, he should have been on the phone with NORAD. As soon as he got word that four different 747's had been hijacked at the same time, he should have been in contact with NORAD. Who knows how many lives could have been saved by scrambling fighter jets to force the planes down? Look at what happened with the 4th plane in Pennsylvania. Contrary to the story we all were originally told, the passengers did not wrest control of the plane from the terrorists. (If they had, would they have flown it straight into the ground, or would they have called air traffic control and try to get someone to talk them through safely landing the plane?) No, the black box confirms that as soon as the passengers started to kick down the cockpit door, the terrorists panicked and steered the plane into the ground because they knew that they could be overpowered and might lose their chance to kill thousands, so they decided they would at least kill the Americans who were on board their plane. There's no reason to think that they might not have reacted similarily to US fighter jets.

There is another promo running on the "Nat Geo" channel in which Bush states that his emotions at the time were "sadness, grief, and determination." Really? Determination? Determination to find out how "My Pet Goat" ends? (In the above clip, Bush claims that he was "listening intently to the lesson" ) Or was it determination to invade the wrong country?

I expect this sort of thing from FOX. They have a pathological need to participate in this sort of shameless rehabilitation of GW Bush, but National Geographic? Aren't they supposed to be an educational organization? Why in the hell would they be a party to this sort of blatantly disingenuous propoganda?

Oh, FOX. You Have no Sense of Irony!

How nutty are you when Ann Coulter thinks you're crazy? How nutty do you have to be for Ann Freakin' Coulter to have to step in and be the voice of reason? Well, you have to be "birther crazy," apparently.





Of course, she's full of shit about a lot of things, like "I don't even know if these are conservatives pushing this." or "It's the liberal media. . .   You haven't heard that on Fox News." Especially because like three days later, Hannity had Batshit Bachmann on to say this:

J. Crew Is Destroying The World!

At least according to FOX.com

J. Crew Plants the Seeds for Gender Identity

By Dr. Keith Ablow

Published April 11, 2011

| FoxNews.com

Dr. Keith Ablow

I guess that's supposed to be scary, but I didn't see how the term "gender identity" would mean anything negative. I thought maybe it had some definition with which I was unfamiliar, but according to dictionary.com, it just means:

a person's inner sense of being male or female, usually developed during early childhood

or 

the totality of physical and behavioral traits that are designated by a culture as masculine or feminine

So how is "planting the seeds of gender identity" supposed to be bad? Oh, just wait! Here's an ominous bit of foreshadowing, "pink toenails!!!!" See, Miss Stone, I was paying attention in Ninth Grade Lit.

A recent feature in J. Crew's online catalogue portrays designer Jenna Lyons painting her son Beckett’s toe nails hot pink. The quote accompanying the image reads, “Lucky for me, I ended up with a boy whose favorite color is pink. Toenail painting is way more fun in neon.”

 

Oh, I think we all know where this is going. Next stop, Gomorrha!

Yeah, well, it may be fun and games now, Jenna, but at least put some money aside for psychotherapy for the kid—and maybe a little for others who’ll be affected by your “innocent” pleasure.

I know I'm affected already just from seeing the picture of the little boy's pink toenails. Help, I need some sort of gender therapy or something! Quickly, before I put on a dress!

This is a dramatic example of the way that our culture is being encouraged to abandon all trappings of gender identity—homogenizing males and females when the outcome of such “psychological sterilization” [my word choice] is not known.

Well, you could ask David Bowie. Was anyone ever more androgynous than Bowie in his heyday?

And how did this affect his personal life? Well, he's been married twice, currently to model Iman since 1992, and has fathered a child with each of his wives. (And God knows how many with various groupies.) Hardly an example of "sterilization."

In our technology-driven world—fueled by Facebook, split-second Prozac prescriptions and lots of other assaults on genuine emotion and genuine relationships and actual consequences for behavior—almost nothing is now honored as real and true.

Do they still make Prozac? I thought everyone was taking Zoloft now.  But yeah, he's got a good point. Nothing assaults actual consequences for behavior like Facebook and anti-depressants. Because you could do something totally bad and then Facebook would, um, let you get away with it, I guess? Or something? With Prozac? Anyway. . .

Increasingly, this includes the truth that it is unwise to dress little girls like miniature adults (in halter tops and shorts emblazoned with PINK across the bottoms) and that it is unwise to encourage little boys to playact like little girls.

Okay, you had me then you lost me. I have to agree that dressing little girls in outfits that would be "provocative" on grown women just seems wrong and really just horrible.


But I don't see the problem with a little boy playing with "girl stuff" like makeup or dolls or whatever, How could this possibly be a problem?

If you have no problem with the J. Crew ad, how about one in which a little boy models a sundress?

I don't know, might look kinda bad-ass.

how about one in which a little boy models a sundress? What could possibly be the problem with that? Well, how about the fact that encouraging the choosing of gender identity, rather than suggesting our children become comfortable with the ones that they got at birth, can throw our species into real psychological turmoil—not to mention crowding operating rooms with procedures to grotesquely amputate body parts? 

Riiiiight, because if a little boy were to wear a dress, next thing you know, he's gonna want to get his dick lopped off. It's hard to argue with that logic.

Why not make race the next frontier? What would be so wrong with people deciding to tattoo themselves dark brown and claim African-American heritage?

Um, it wouldn't work? They'd end up looking like this:


And it would take forever and cost a fortune and hurt like hell.

Why not bleach the skin of others so they can playact as Caucasians?

Um, because this:

Why should we hold dear anything with which we were born? 

Yeah, honestly, most of us are perfectly happy with our genders. I personally have no desire to swap my you-know-what for a lady-you-know-what, and I think most of us feel the same way. But for those who are dissatisfied with their assigned gender, what the hell is the problem with letting them try to improve on what they were given?

Why should we hold dear anything with which we were born? What’s the benefit of non-fiction over fiction?

Well, the benefit is that non-fiction always wins, in the end. And to the extent that you take flights of fancy into masquerading through life, life will exact a psychological penalty.

The fallout is already being seen. Increasingly, girls show none of the reticence they once did to engage in early sexual relationships with boys. 

Which is due largely to boys painting their toenails pink. Damn, I wish I would have known that trick when I was a lad! Although, I think that if young ladies are less afraid of their sexuality, that might not be "fallout" so much as a positive development.

 Increasingly, girls show none of the reticence they once did to engage in early sexual relationships with boys. That may be a good thing from the standpoint of gender equality, but it could be a bad thing since there is no longer the same typically “feminine” brake on such behavior. 

The horror! Young people having sex! Oh, I feel faint!

Girls beat up other girls on YouTube. Young men primp and preen until their abdomens are washboards and their hair is perfect. 

Yeah, nothing is more feminine than washboard abs!

 

Dude looks like a lady!

And the surest way to develop those abdominal muscles is by "priming and preening!"

 

Primpin' Ain't Easy!

And while that may seem like no big deal, it will be a very big deal if it turns out that neither gender is very comfortable anymore nurturing children above all else, and neither gender is motivated to rank creating a family above having great sex forever and neither gender is motivated to protect the nation by marching into combat against other men and risking their lives.

Also, if it turns out that neither gender is motivated to grind wheat into flour, or  neither gender is comfortable commanding a submarine, or neither gender is motivated to yodel from mountaintops? All those things could totally happen!  If boys are primping their abs and hair to attract girls, then who's going to march into combat? And who's going to nurture the children if people are too busy having great sex? Great Sex Forever!

Maybe we’ll all have shiny, colored lips, though, and pierced ears and perfect eyebrows and mommies who get applause from their J. Crew friends at the park for parading their sons through the streets in costume.

Their J. Crew friends? You can order friends from J. Crew now? Friends that will applaud for you? I would totally drag a kid through the street in dress if I could get an ovation. My stupid friends almost never applaud me.

Jenna Lyons and J. Crew seem to know exactly what they’re up to. That’s why the photograph of Jenna’s son so prominently displays his hot pink, neon toe nails. These folks are hostile to the gender distinctions that actually are part of the magnificent synergy that creates and sustains the human race [fucking]

I see it all now! Clearly, J. Crew is not really a clothing company, they're just a front for a sinister group of androgynes who plan to turn us all into cross-dressers. Then, when we're all busy parading around with our costumed kids, they will sneak in and win Wimbledon! If Pete Sampras is busy trying on prom dresses and the Williams sisters are beating up Kim Clijsters on YouTube, there'll be no stopping them!

I wonder what Jenna would think if her son wanted to celebrate his masculinity with a little playacting as a cowboy, with a gun? Would that bring the same smile of joy and pure love that we see on her face in the J. Crew advertisement? Or would that be where she might draw the line?

Ooh, baseless speculation! Can I play? Um, what if he wanted to be a cowboy, but it was the cowboy from the Village people?



I bet she would totally be OK with that.

Or what if he wanted to play pirate?



But, here's the twist, he meant Pittsburgh Pirate!



Ooh, I'll bet she would hate that,because her son would be doing something typical of his gender identity group. And we know how much Jenna and the whole J. Crew cabal hate that!

Rand Paul and FOX are Disgusting

In the intro to this piece, the FOX on-air person refers to a "brawl" outside of the debate. This was not a brawl. This was one woman being attacked by at least 3 men. Calling it a brawl implies that there were fists being thrown on both sides.

This is a brawl:


Several men knocking down and stepping on one woman is not a brawl, it is assault and battery.

Then Rand Paul comes on and everyone talks about how they sure hate to see such incivility, as if the three men had insulted the woman or called her names or wolf-whistled at her. This was not incivility, this was a crime. And Paul's line about how passions were running high on both sides is just utter bullshit. Passions may have run high on both sides, but only one side got violent. How dare he pretend that there is some shared culpability for this incident?

Why won't he just condemn this? How hard is it to say "These guys don't work for me and I want nothing to do with them because they are obviously violent criminals who should be prosecuted." Why can't he just say something simple like that? Is he that worried about losing the misogynist thug vote? Just apologize! No one's blaming you directly. You were inside at the debate, you weren't orchestrating this assault, just say that you're sorry and tell your followers that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. By dancing around it you're giving tacit approval to your supporters to act like thugs. It's wrong, you know it's wrong, just say so.

ADDENDUM: According to Countdown w/Keith Olbermann, the asshole who stomped on the lady DOES work for the Rand Paul Campaign.

Crazy Candidate Of The Day: our first two-time winner!

Today's Crazy Candidate is for the second time, Nevada's Sharron Angle!

Here's what Ms. Angle had to say during one of her super-rare appearances on the TV:
(with friendly FOX "news" guy Carl Cameron)

SHARRON ANGLE: We needed to have the press be our friend.

CAMERON: That sounds naive.

ANGLE: Well, no. We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported.

Wow! Do you really not get how this works? Do you honestly think that the press is supposed to be PR hacks for your campaign? I know that's what you're used to getting from FOX, but in the real world, reporters are supposed to ask the questions they think are important, not the ones you think you might help your campaign. The press is there to help us, not you. And by us, I mean the American public, the voters, your potential constituents. It is not their job to put softballs up on a tee for you. This isn't the Tonight Show, you're supposed to be able to handle tough questions. What are you, channeling Sarah Palin?



And legitimate reporters are sure as hell not supposed to let you solicit donations on the air.

I guess this explains why Sharron Angle won't talk to any press but FOX.

Hell, she won't even take questions at her own media events



Oh, and here's what happens when Angle does get legitimate questions:



How this woman is considered a legitimate candidate for the US Senate is beyond me.