The Keith Olbermann flap

I have seen a number of people say that we should protest for Keith and against the unfair treatment he has gotten at the hands of MSNBC. I respectfully disagree with this position, and here's why.

As a 'Journalist,' and I use this term loosely for Olbermann because he's really more of an op-ed guy, Olbermann has a duty to his department and to his viewers to remain as objective as he can be. Journalistic objectivity has become a bit of a paleolithic concept these days I know, but it still matters. In fact, it matters even more now that there is so little of it left to be found.

The only way we can combat the FOXs of this world is by being what they aren't, which is reliably objective. I was watching the Daily Show Wednesday night when Jon was interviewing Chris Wallace and he (Stewart) made an important point. He said that the mistake that MSNBC is making combating FOX is in trying to be the same thing FOX is but from the left side of the political spectrum. The problem with this is that it plays directly into FOX's claims that the MSM is left-leaning. The more effective way to combat this would be to provide real, non-partisan journalism.

The people are not served by having one network try to be just as left as the other is right. This is essentially saying that two wrongs will equal a right, and that never works. If Olbermann is allowed to be openly partisan how can we trust him? I already don't trust FOX to communicate the truth. It was damaging to their meager reputation when they gave money to the Republicans. It is damaging to MSNBC's reputation if they give money to the Democrats.

I guess what I am saying is:

Give me someone I can trust! Someone above the fray who is willing to just tell me what happened. Better yet, give me several and let me decide based on something that really doesn't matter, like is she pretty, or does he remind me of my dad.. Back in the day we never had to struggle with the question of authenticity, the networks fought their ratings battles using tools that didn't change the tenor of the news, just the packaging.

That, in my opinion, would be a return to sanity.

Michelle Bachmann is an evil bitch and needs to ... have something bad happen to her.

I don't really want her to die or get cancer.. But just barely. She is a hateful lying person who will say whatever she thinks she can get away with to damage the Conservative's Great White Whale a/k/a Barack Obama.

She is worse than Sarah Palin by a long shot. She single-handedly lowers my every expectation of politicians and women in politics.

A small sample of her lying-ass ways:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-rodda/bachmann-uses-fake-george_b_194960.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2010/04/sunday-slips/

http://factcheck.org/2009/06/acorn-and-the-census/

Hannah Storms sexy outfits

Newsflash!! ESPN is a channel whose primary demographic is beer drinking dudes between the ages of 18 & 50 something. Are you really going to bitch because Hannah Storm's dress is a little on the short side? Really? Wake up and smell the Budweiser!

Oh, and for the record... sports is not news. Weather, when its atypical, is news. Sinkholes are news. Board of Education meetings, while tedious to the point of suicide can be news, but sports is something we do for fun and only affects a few people. Stop pretending that it requires gravitas.

Don't Ask Don't Tell Defenders

For those of you who still don't get it, here's why this is wrong:

Instead of striking down the policy of discrimination by a governmental agency, DADT simply sidesteps it by saying that, even though we don't want Homosexuals in the military, we'll pretend that you aren't gay if you don't tell us you are.

The defenders seem to think it's enough to let gay people serve if they want to. They are missing the point. Me telling you that I find you disgusting and objectionable but you can come to my party anyway is not a real welcoming gesture is it?

The enemy

"Because the Enemy does all he can to keep us blinded and discouraged so that we follow any path but the one God has laid out for us."

Really? is it like that actually?

Why is is that psople feel the need to elevate Satan to the same level as God? It is hubris ultimately. Satan, being other than God is more like me, as I am other too.

There is this conception amid otherwise intelligent people that God somehow NEEDS Satan to exist. This implies that God, the all-knowing, is powerless where Satan is concerned. What a steaming pile that is

"I ate my baby's placenta!" WTF?!!?

This kind of fuckery has got to go away!

http://www.momlogic.com/2009/04/i_ate_the_placenta.php

"The practice of placentophagia, eating the placenta, is practiced in many parts of the world..."

So is female circumcision.

Please God Make Them Stop!!!

There's just no good reason for this. Who's paying for this ridiculous shizzle? You know they aren't doing it on their own. They are probably straining the generosity of the families and parishoners. It's selfish and stupid. I think we need to get a vasecotomy AND tubes tied ASAFP!!!

Hey, I've got an idea... instead of the Duggars they could go all anal and change their name to the Buggers. Then they can give birth several times a day without straining the budget of their entire community. Let's pitch in and send a family size tub of lube for Christmas to get the ball rolling!!

I knew I smelled a Rat... or maybe a septic tank

Joe the Plumber: McCain "Appalled Me," Made Me Feel "Dirty"

What a gigantic load of shit! Can you believe this moron? This whole story stunk to the heavens from day one. I am just glad the truth is out there. And as for his comment about Sarah Palin being "the real deal"... you know he's just holding out for four years to see if he can hit that.

This guy is high on the list for Douchenozzle of the year. Actually, I think I am going to create a special honor and name him ...

DoucheNozzle Enemameritus

Please Explain This To Me

I like my morning coffee with a little sugar.  It's a simple thing really.  Coffee and about a teaspoon and a half of sugar.  Yet every time I stop at the local McDowell's for a McMuffin and I ask for coffee with sugar, I get either coffee with cream, or more often than not, coffee with sugar AND cream?

It it so difficult for the "knowledge workers" in the establishment to get the order right?  They get the food right most of the time, so why not the coffee?

That's all...  Douchenozzles!

Oh yeah...

Where Do They Find These People?

What the fuck dude!?!

I have gay friends.  Respectable, normal people who like the peen.  I have no problem with that.  They can even get married as far as I'm concerned, but bitches like this one have GOT TO GO.

Were I gay man and I ran into this little queen, I would rip him a new one... which he could probably use.  His brand of queeny, uncle Tom-foolery is why some people hate the queer nation.

Watch his riduculous paroxyms of hap-penis over winning this make-up contest show thingie:

Joe Lieberman

Joe Lieberman used to be a Democrat, but he was beaten in the Dem. primary so he switched to Independant, now he might as well come out of the closet and go full on Republican. He already spent half the year with his toungue up McCain's ass.

Nothing says vote/power whore quite like that!

The people of Connecticutt's asses must be sore 'cuz "Back door" Joe forgot to lube up. He is a douchenozzle!

Every President Needs His Billie Carter...

Apparently Barack Obama is no exception to this rule. There are already two candidates driving hard for the hoop to fill that role and win the coveted spot on on Obama's coat tails.
The first out of the gate this week was one of the country's most tallented and loud-spoken race baiters. None other than Louis Farrakhan

Farrakhan suggested he would keep a low profile in the campaign, despite his enthusiasm for Obama.

"That's why you have never heard me make any comment," he explained. "I love that brother, and I want to see that brother successful. I don't want to say anything that would hurt that brother, and I don't want them to use me or the Nation of Islam."

Returning to the theme that Obama is a mystical figure, Farrakhan said, he "is not the Messiah for sure, but anytime he gives you a sign of uniting races, ethnic groups, ideologies, religions and makes people feel a sense of oneness, that's not necessarily Satan's work, that is, I believe, the work of God."
link

I love it that he says he has shied away from commenting because he doesn't want to say anything to hurt that brother... he doesn't "want them to use me or the Nation of Islam." Like the mere act of opening his mouth in support of anyone doesn't cast a pall over them in the public eye!

Hey Dr., if you really want to hook a brother up, you should just shut the fuck up!

This next part is my favorite.

"anytime he gives you a sign of uniting races, ethnic groups, ideologies,
religions and makes people feel a sense of oneness, that's not
necessarily Satan's work. "

Not necessarily? WTF is that supposed to mean? Apparently all those good sounding things are the tools of the Devil, the White Devil I think is what he means.

Gee Lou, ... thanks for the endorsement. I guess.

Not to be outdone, out pops the patron saint of opportunism, Rev. Jesse Jackson. Not one to let his previous indiscretions with an open mic impede his boot-lickin', Jesse weighed in on the life and times of Barack Obama in the way only another oppressed and down-trodden black man can:

Jackson warns that he isn't an Obama confidant or adviser, "just a supporter."
But he adds that Obama has been "a neighbor or, better still, a member of the
family." Jackson's son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson's
daughter went to school with Obama's wife Michelle.

"We helped him start his career," says Jackson. "And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged."

Will Obama's election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding.

"No, that chapter won't be closed," he says. "However, Obama's victory will be a huge step
in the direction we have wanted America to take for decades."

Jackson rejects any suggestion that Obama was influenced by Marxist ideas in his youth. "I see no evidence of that," he says. "Obama's thirst for justice and equality is rooted in his black culture."
But is Obama - who's not a descendant of slaves - truly a typical American black? Jackson emphatically answers yes: "You don't need to be a descendant of slaves to experience the oppression, the suffocating injustice and the ugly racism that exists in our society," he says.

"Obama experienced the same environment as all American blacks did. It was nonsense to suggest that he was somehow not black enough to feel the pain." link

".. a neighbor, or better still, a member of the family." I get the feeling that was supposed to be inner dialog. He was weighing which was the best way to paint their relationship to the outside world and his thoughts just kinda slipped out!

My personal hope is that if Barack Obama wins this election, his victory serves as the nails in the coffins of both of these douchenozzles' perceived cultural relevency. The rhetoric of rage and oppression, one that Obama does not preach, is precisly what needs to end in this country. It benefits no one and serves only as an impediment to hope.

Socialists Are Taking Over The Country

I heard the clip below in the car on my way home from work and thought; What a douche!

Basically this cheesehead is mad because people aren't voting the way he wants them to.  In the words of Randy Marsh, "Isn't this America?  I thought this was America?"  

What I find exquisitely amusing is that he's doing it at a rally for the man who recently proposed the largest socialisty action I can think of.  McCain is proposing to buyout the mortgages of those who over bought and then let them refinance at a reasonable rate.  Where do you suppose the money to do this will come from?  It's coming out of our pockets regardless of the methodolgy.  Either they're taking it in taxes or they're printing the money to do it which will devalue our currency so regardless we're fucked!  

Here's the Douchenozzle in action:

McCain says:  "Americans are angry sir.  They are angry and frustrated."

No shit moron!  That's why the Right is losing this election.

Then he launches into voter fraud.  He's already hedging!

The thing that actually disturbs me about this guy is that he is serious in saying that he thinks the will of the people is being thwarted.  There are people out there who think their idea of how the country should be governed supercedes that of the rest of the voting public.  They are the Timothy McVeighs of this country.  

Cindy McCain Can Talk!?!

Dammit! There goes so many men's fantasy of the perfect woman.
Let's break it down:

• She's hot
• Her dad owns a huge beer distribution company
• She's rich as hell
• She never talks

Well we can scratch that last one! Apparently she managed to squeeze out a few words without cracking her makeup the other day, and here's what she said:

Barack Obama is running "the dirtiest campaign in American history."

As Sheila B. would say: Wha-Wha-What!?!

This coming from the woman married to John McCain. The McCain campaign has done almost nothing but criticize and tell outright lies about Obama. Oh well. What can you do.

Here's the story:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93N50180&show_article=1

Why It's OK, Even Preferable, for Conservative Christians to Vote Democrat

This is a little different from my normal fare. Please bear with me...

It's pretty much a forgone conclusion that if you are a conservative Christian you will vote Republican. As near as I can tell the only two reasons for this are abortion and prayer in schools. These issues will not be settled by the Executive branch of the government. It is only through the striking down the legal precedents or through constitutional amendments that these can be changed. Of course the other avenue would be to stack the Supreme Court with jurists whom we believe would vote a certain way. That is a tricky job however as judges can not and do not vote their conscience, they tend to stick to the constitution and vote accordingly. What other reasons are there for voting Republican if you are a Christian? Are there reasons you shouldn't vote Republican? Where is the balance?

The Republicans believe that we should give tax breaks to the richest people in the country and allow "Faith-based" groups to take care of the poor. Does it make sense for the burden of the country's poor to fall on the minority? The percentage of people in the U.S. who identify themselves as Christians, according to a 2000 Census Bureau report make up 47.4% of the population, with Jewish people at a scant 2.2%.** Clearly there is no way that Faith-based groups can take the place of the Government in caring for the poor in this country. There is no doubt that these dollars could be spent more wisely, but the burden has to fall on ALL of the taxpayers!

There is precedent in the words and deeds of Christ and his disciples that giving to the poor was preferable to being wealthy. The one notable exception was his words to Judas about the poor:

12:8 For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always.
(King James Bible, John)

So I guess that means if you happen to have a prophet in your midst who is about to be killed, you don't have to feel bad about springing for the name brand Root Beer instead of the Fanta. Fair enough.

OK, a few more quotes:

14:13 But when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: 14:14 And thou shalt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just.
(King James Bible, Luke)

18:22 Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.

18:23 And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich.

18:24 And when Jesus saw that he was very sorrowful, he said, How hardly shall they that have riches enter into the kingdom of God! 18:25 For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

------

19:8 And Zacchaeus stood, and said unto the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have taken any thing from any man by false accusation, I restore him fourfold.

19:9 And Jesus said unto him, This day is salvation come to this house, forsomuch as he also is a son of Abraham.
(King James Bible, Luke)

There's a consistent message here: The poor need the help of those who have more. This translates pretty easily into a socio-economic theory that takes into account that we are, in fact, our brothers' keepers. Prior to 1929 no one in this country had ever seen a complete monetary system collapse to the degree it did. In the early days of the USA we always had the British pound to fall back on when the Continental currency collapsed. Perhaps the only close event took place in the Confederate South after the Civil War when their currency became worthless. The difference again was that there was a stable alternative, however thin on the ground it might have been.

The Founding Fathers did not include any sort of social programs for the poor. This is a fact. Countless other things were not accounted for as well. They left it up to the Legislative branch to make the necessary provisions, which we eventually did with the New Deal.

The Republican Party like to refer to the New Deal programs as entitlements. That word has a pejorative connotation as it implies getting something for nothing. Charity is also getting something for nothing. There is a difference between a gift and a favor. A gift is given with no strings attached. A favor is something you do for someone with the understanding that they owe you in return.

Jesus did both. He healed people, multiplied the loaves and fishes, etc. Those were gifts. When he told the prostitute "Go and sin no more." that was a favor. He expects her to clean up her act.

I wouldn't deign to suggest that Jesus would be a member of one party or an other. My guess is that He would not affiliate himself with either party. I would expect that He would be in favor of helping the poor and for the rich to be the primary engine of that help. The Republican party demonizes anyone who advocates for the poor by referring to their programs as entitlement-based, as Governor Palin did in the recent Vice Presidential debate. Do you think Jesus would demonize those who advocate for the poor?

Jesus worked at ground level. Face to face with the people. Like a social worker. He had nothing. The apostles gave up everything at His request to follow him. Wealth was not on their radar. Now I am not suggesting that having money is bad, on the contrary! But I do know from my own experience that there is no better feeling than the one that comes from helping others. I gladly pay my taxes knowing that there are people out there whose children are being fed, and whose basic needs are being cared for. I volunteer as well because you can't just throw money at some problems.

If you are still balking at the first paragraph, remember that as a constituent, you have a voice in what your elected officials do, be they Republicans or Democrats. In the end, wouldn't you rather align yourself with the party whose goals are closer to the words of Jesus than one whose goals are just to save you a few dollars in taxes?



** http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/08s0076.pdf

See photo

What is the difference between a single issue voter and a whore?

A single-issue voter WILL love you long-time and allow you to penetrate any orifice whenever without protection. (Covered in genital warts, for HER pleasure!) They'll even bring along an old college roommate for a three-way at no extra cost!

Say you want prayer back in schools? That'll only cost you a few thousand dead soldiers and civilians. And a wrecked economy.

I am just gob-smacked when I hear people justify having someone like Sarah Palin as VP because they want some issue protected or removed. What - the - fuck???

That's all I have to day about that.

"End Times" dipshits are tipping their hands.. that they are crazy

Munger also asked Palin if she truly believed in the End of Days, the doomsday scenario when the Messiah will return. "She looked in my eyes and said, 'Yes, I think I will see Jesus come back to earth in my lifetime.'"

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/09/15/bess/index.html

Didja ever notice how all these "end of days" morons are certain its going to happen in their lifetime?  Doesn't this smack just a little of hubris?  I mean honestly!  It's just like the idjits that insist they were Joan of Arc or Martin Luther in a past life.  I'd like to get a few of them in the same room at the same time and watch 'em duke it out.  

nutjob #1: "I was Maid Marion!" 

nutjob #2 : "I beg to differ, I was Maid Marion"

Shirley Maclaine: "As much as you ladyes would like to believe you were Maid Marion, I can prove without a shadow of a doubt that you were not."

Slap fight ensues.....

Chances are really good that you weren't anybody who any of us would know about.  If there is any re-incarnation actually going on you were more likely to have been "Bob the crippled"  or Jean du visage de l'oiseaux, (bird-faced johnny) or "Farts by the fire."  Get over yourselves people!!

These kinds of beliefs are just self-referential, masturbatory bullshit in the guise of inspired religious truth.

Creationists, Like The Republican Party's New V.P. pick, are douche nozzles

Today I would like to talk about why Creationists are nozzles. The easy answer would be to point out that they are fundamentalists, and all fundamentalists are douche nozzles. I would however like to expound upon my opinionations on this subject. Here goes:

I have no problems with the Bible. I consider myself to be a faithful person. I do not, however believe that every word in the Bible is a literal representation of the events that took place through the period of history that the Bible covers. This is where I part company with the Creationists. They believe that God actually spoke, and creation occurred. OK, let's think about this for a second. When God speaks, what sort of language does he use? How big is His mouth? These are valid questions if you assume the verses in Genesis that outline the creation are actually true. It's either all literal or it's not. You can't simply draw the line where it pleases you to do so, that's called interpretation and it leads to error and perdition!

There are huge amounts of scientific data that point toward the Earth being much older than 4,000 years. One would have to take the stance that God created the Earth with many of the processes that we know to take thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of years already in progress. Canyons already partially formed. Mountains already windblown. Declining species already in a state of decline and rising ones already on the way up. More to the point, you would have to assume that every scientific fact that counts towards the nullification of the literal interpretation of the creation story would have to have been accounted for in the act of creation. So what, right? God is all powerful, he could surely do that if He chose to. If you admit that to be the case you have just stated that evolution was a process created by God himself. You are now in contradiction. 

Evolution itself is a fact.  You could save face by admitting that God created the world and evolution is a natural process that resulted from that creation.  Then you could teach creationism AND evolution in your privately funded Church/Home schools.  That way if your beloved spawn make it to college, they won't be mistaken for trailor trash because they weren't properly educated.

The other reason I find this extremly implausible is that it's not consistent with other things in the Bible itself. If God created Adam and Eve and they were the first humans to grace the Earth, where did all the other people come from? Did Cain take turns impregnating his sisters or Adam his daughters? Gross right?!? There were other civilizations in the Bible that existed concurrently with those of the direct descendants of Adam and Eve. Not too mention the fact that Europe, Asia, Africa Australia, North and South America were also populated by humans. There simply wasn't the time or the technology in place to allow mankind to spread from a single point to other, remote continents given the timetable they propose.

As a creationist, you are saying that facts mean nothing to you. The world is on a set of train tracks laid by God that nothing can alter. The future is fixed. So much for free will. This is Douche Nozzlery at its finest!

David Mamet's dialogue makes me want to scream

Every couple of months, I am forced by some cruel twist of chance or fate to think about David Mamet. When this happens I invariably have the same reaction... RAGE. This guy drives me crazy!

He is a great storyteller, something very rare, but his dialogue is God-awful! Some people talk about him like he's God but I can barely sit through the torturous moments of his characters and their completely unrealistic yammering. Case in point. I pulled this from Wikipedia as an example. It's from Glen Garry/Glen Ross:

Moss: No. What do you mean? Have I talked to him about this [Pause]
Aaronow: Yes. I mean are you actually talking about this, or are we just...
Moss: No, we're just...
Aaronow: We're just "talking" about it.
Moss: We're just speaking about it. [Pause] As an idea.
Aaronow: As an idea.
Moss: Yes.
Aaronow: We're not actually talking about it.
Moss: No.
Aaronow: Talking about it as a...
Moss: No.
Aaronow: As a robbery.
Moss: As a "robbery"? No.

Normal people don't make distinctions between talking and speaking. It's just silly. I get what he's trying to do, I just think the construction is totally artificial. Even great actors come off sounding wooden and stilted when they have to deliver dialog like this.

I had a discussion with one of the employees at my local Blockbuster about this and he just loves Mamet. Thinks he's the greatest screenplay writer going. Even likes the style of the dialogue! I am baffled. I told him I thought Quentin Tarantino's dialogue was a hundred times better, which it is, and he disagreed. Unbelievable! One could argue that Tarantino's dialog is bit too hip to be legit, but I know more people who talk the way his characters' do than the way Mamet's do and I was a philosophy major. Talk about stilted pompous dialogue... there were pipes involved. Pipes, I tell you!!

Well, I've gone on long enough about this. Hopefully the act of writing this down will bring me some measure of peace... at least until the next time.