Saturday, April 30, 2005
Here's how you libs can get cred with the American public:
1) Look up in the dictionary these words: "lie" "liar" "lied" "lies". Memorize the definitions and learn how to apply said definitions to real life. An illustration:
Not so long ago the following conversation occurred between me and Sisyphus at a local bar:
LF: Warren Burger dissented in Roe v. Wade.
Sis: No he didn't.
LF: Yes he did.
Sis: No he didn't.
LF: Yes he did. (where's my beer?)
Sis: Tell ya' what: I will find the evidence to back up my position and crucify you on my blog tomorrow.
LF: Bring it mofo! Waitress? Another beer please.
It turns out Sis was right, and he did follow through on his promise. That's how real intellectuals handle such disputes. But what if Sisyphus were a liberal? The conversation would have gone like this:
LF: Warren Burger dissented in Roe v. Wade.
Sis: LIAR!!!! YOU LYING F***ING LIAR. DIE YOU LIAR!!!! LearnedFoot lied and children died! LearnedFoot lied and innocent Iraqis died! No blood for oil! No blood for oil!
Yes, you people really do look that stupid.
2) Stop getting offended at everything.
3) Al Gore is such a moron. Someone should shoot him.
Randi Rhodes is so offensive. Randi, do us all a favor: kill yourself.
Someone needs to find where Luke Francl lives, and firebomb his house.
(It doesn't sound too fricking funny when someone wishes for one of your guys to die, does it?)
4) Stop ridiculing evangelicals about their crusade against teaching evolution in school. They're doing a good enough job making fools of themselves the way it is. It's like you are beating on a retarded child. (Look Flash! I just smacked conservatives. Yeah, I have cred.)
5) Don't say that there is no Social Security crisis after the election (of a Republican), when before the election you touted the "looming Social Security Crisis". It only shows that you are afraid that the Republican fixes to the program will be effective, guaranteeing 20 more years in power.
6) Learn how to do math. (A 5% increase is not a "cut" no matter how much the program in question's funding increased the previous year. And don't float that bullshit "cost of inflation" argument either. Other than gas and real estate prices, there is no inflation.)
7) Learn how markets work.
8) Discover the fact that you are not the big tent party. I will challenge you again: name three national Democratic pro-life officeholders? *Crickets chirping*
8a) This country is comprised of individuals, not a carefully carved up and classified aggregation of victim / minority / special interest groups. By my calculations, you got about 2 more presidential elections before the black population figures out that Affirmative Action is an outdated insult to their intelligence, and the Hispanic community finally pulls the trigger and abandons you guys wholesale for a party more consistent with their values.
"Big tent" my ass.
9) Stop using the word "corporate" as a pejorative term. It's obvious you don't know what that word (or its root: "corporation") means.
10) Stop worshiping politicians. You people made asses of yourselves during the days after Wellstone's death.
11) Speaking of Paul Wellstone: you need to learn that being the "1" in a 99 to 1 Senate vote is not an indication of courage or conviction; but it is a great indication that you are amazingly out of touch with reality and just plain WRONG.
12) Rallies, marches and protests do nothing except provide material for us.
13) You haven't been losing elections because your message hasn't gotten out, but because your message sucks: Air America made it's splashy debut well before the election; not to mention you own (ideologically) just about every other major daily editorial page, the three major networks, CNN, MSNBC etc. etc.
14) Hollywood celebrities - for the most part - are spoiled morons, and everybody (except for you) knows it. It would do your cause a great deal of good to shut those assholes up.
15) It's not "progressive" to tax people into the stone age.
16) Stop trying to project your history of election-rigging onto us. Ohio: nice try. Wisconsin: you assfaces stole 10 electoral votes, and it will be proven.
17) You really aren't reading any more are you?
18) So stop acting like you are smarter than I am. You're not.
Friday, April 29, 2005
The president has a plan. Oh yes he does. He won't tell me about it - or you. But it's there, buried in a 2,000 page federal budget.
He wants to hand pick a group of lobbyists and give them the power to terminate any federal agency he dislikes. Department of Education? Poof! Are the worrywarts at the EPA pestering businesses with environmental nonsense? Not to worry. Bush will just cancel the agency. Food and Drug Administration? The SEC - Who needs those guys?
Are you ready to put this much power in the hands of a team of six lobbyists led by one man? We still live in country in which it is possible to look up the federal budget online. With this one provision, Bush could end that access. The Freedom of Information Act won't mean anything if there isn't any information to free. Fight this with everything you can.
Yep, this one has all the hallmarks of spittle-flecking lefty rhetoric: condescending tone, hissy-fit panicked delusions, yet another "power grab" by Bush, and of course, the activist call to action reminiscent of those Cro Magnons on DU right after the election ("I'm going to Ohio! Who's with me?")
Not to mention being mind-bendingly wrong.
Oh yeah: I'm gonna pound the crap outta this one.
First, an observation. Note where this moron lifts his "analysis" from: a Rolling Stone article. That's like picking up the latest issue of the Utne Reader to get a good analysis of last week's NFL draft.
Now as for the substance of Dumbass' "legal analysis," I don't even need to read the law "buried" in the budget bill to know why he's wrong. Let's take his examples:
He wants to hand pick a group of lobbyists and give them the power to terminate any federal agency he dislikes. Department of Education? Poof! Are the worrywarts at the EPA pestering businesses with environmental nonsense? Not to worry. Bush will just cancel the agency. Food and Drug Administration? The SEC - Who needs those guys?
Well, the president couldn't cancel any of those agencies even if he wanted to. The SEC, for example, was set up by an act of Congress. For the executive branch to cancel it would be an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers. Any "vote" made by "lobbyists" to abrogate an Article 1 agency (that's an agency created by Congress for all you lefty constitutional scholars out there) would be a nullity at best, and would subject the President to impeachment at worst.
In any event, if this provision does what Moron thinks it does (and I'm sure it doesn't), then it's unconstitutional on its face, and once the bill is passed into law there will be a phalanx of moonbat nonprofit legal organizations lining up to get the law struck down in the courts.
Well, maybe we should cut these lefties some slack since this "separation of powers" doctrine has been demonstriably hard for them to grasp. They still think that the judicial branch is the one that writes the laws.
"Reality based community", huh?
Why don't you folks leave the thinking to those of us that have full command of our brains and get our "news" from sources other than Rolling Stone. You folks just stick to doing what you do best: making placards, jerking your knees, and making hollow calls to action that amount to nothing more than tilting at windmills.
I hear that the Nashua Advocate is hiring "staff reporters". Those guys at the BTDNSIN would fit right in over there. They could drop the NA's Cred Rating another 1000 points.
Liberals have failed to sell the American electorate on their agenda, and have been losing at the ballot box since the Reagan Revolution. I really believe that they see the courts as their last hope for installing their distorted world view on the rest of us. And who can blame them? The courts as currently structured have demonstrated on numerous occasions that they are willing to enact by fiat that which the American public has vetoed at the polls.
It is a truly frightening proposition for these people that they will lose this last line of defense for their fragile philosophical fortress. If the senate votes to use what has become known as "the nuclear option," it will breach this defense in a big way. The Libs in power do not want any of these nominees to come to a floor vote because they know a good number of them will be confirmed. And that means appellate-level appointments, and a virtual Bush judicial 'farm team' for Supreme Court justice nominations.
The Left understands the importance of these next few weeks. I hope conservatives in a position to influence the outcome do as well.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Phil: I have a cred rating of 153. What's yours, Fred?
Fred: Ha! I'm a 167! I RULE, YOU SUCK!
Ah, visions of Utopia.
The blog ratings would be based on the intellectual sophistication, quality of writing, informativeness, and bredth of topics covered on each blog. This system would work well in other media too. For example, you would expect a regular reader of National Review to be a rather intellectual and earnest person, whereas it's a money bet to expect a Doonesbury addict to be a drooling moron.
But the nature of blogs is such that one can read several, even dozens, per day. Which means an aggregating system would be the best. A prsonal cred scoring system might look like this:
If you read Instapundit daily, add 10 points to your score;
If you read Nihilist in Golf Pants, add 11 points to your score;
Give yourself 15 points for each Northern Alliance blog (excluding Power Line) you read;
Add 20 points if you are a regular reader of KAR (hey, my scale, my rules);
If you are a fan of the Nashua Advocate blog, subtract 8,943 points from your score.
Right now you are saying to yourself: "What the hell is the Nashua Advocate?" A fair question.
The Nashua Advocate is a blog that notorious blog-hating radio and print "personality" NonMonkey considers a legitimate source of news and analysis. Every so often NonMonkey interviews what he refers to as the "Managing Editor" of the Nashua Advocate (dot blogspot dot com) about the latest left-wing wet dream "news" fantasy of the day.
That's exactly what that blog is: a fantasy mill for the single-chromosome lefty. Now excuse me for a moment. That last paragraph reminded me of some internal administrative matters:
To: KAR Staff
From: L. Foot, KAR Managing editor
Re: New Titles
Henceforth the staff of the KAR are designated the following titles:
LearnedFoot: Managing Editor and General Counsel
V-Toed-Bill: Art Director
Dementee: Executive Chef
Please amend your letterheads accordingly.
OK, with that out of the way, back to business.
NonMonkey has said many times that this New Hampshire blog is one of his favorites; his favorite local blog being the one run by a publicity whore well-known to the local blogosphere (and if you read her blog deduct 123 cred points from your total). Apparently he thinks this blog is a better souce of information than that other blog run by "Ivy League lawyers".
Memo to NonMonkey: if you want to attack someone's cred, I can think of no worse way of doing so than refering to them as Ivy League lawyers. It's not nearly as bad as being a "bush league reporter".
Well, let's just take a survey of NonMonkey's favorite, cred-laden blog (NOTE: I will not hyperlink because I do not want KAR to show up on this fruitcake's referrer list - you'll have to cut and paste):
One of the latest stories on the NA is that there are new developments in the Jeff Gannon story (oh goody! more stuff to which the left-wing blogosphere can jerk off) (emphasis mine):
And that was before this bombshell from the Secret Service, which establishes Gannongate as, at worst, a massive national security scandal, at least a stunning propaganda scandal, and quite possibly--as The Advocate has been speculating longer than just about anyone, since February 16th--a homosexual sex scandal involving top members of the Bush Administration.
See what I mean when I write "left-wing fantasy mill". Yep, Gannon was not only a fake reporter, but he was giving Rummy hummers in the Blue Room.
NonMonkey's "favorite blog".
Then there's this ridiculous assertion that expands one of my pet peeves - journalists playing lawyer - to include fruitcakes playing journalists playing lawyer (nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2005/04/did-president-bush-violate-us.html):
The President can vacation wherever he likes, but he cannot establish a "Western White House" and declare, as he has, that the operations of the Executive Branch of government will from time to time be conducted solely from a location that is, in no uncertain terms, his own private property. Now, for the legal proofs:
Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 17. [In part]. "Powers Granted to Congress: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District [I will insert what this moron elided since it's important: "not exceeding ten miles square" - it's talking about the nation's capitol and nothing more] ...as may, by...the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government in the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be..."
COMMENTARY: So what does this tell us? First, that the notion of a "Seat of Government" is a constitutionally-prescribed precept. Second, that there is only one "Seat of Government," not two or three or thirteen. Third, Congress decides which one place will be the "Seat of Government," and Congress alone. Fourth, that the "Seat of Government" must rest on federal--that is, public--property, meaning property "purchased [by Congress, on behalf of the People] by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same [Seat of Government] shall be..."
The President's "Western White House" fails each and every one of these tests.
Er, ever heard of Camp David? What about Air Force One? Official government business occurs in those places as well.
And a "real" lawyer would have noted that Article II (which is the part of the constitution that contains the provisions pertinent to the president, so it's kinda important to this "argument") is totally silent about the locus of the execution of Presidental duties, including the State of the Union Address (Art. II, sec. 3 providing merely that the president "give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union" without specifying a time place or manner.)
Apparently Reagan's Summit with Gorbachev was also "illegal" since it was an official govenment function (dickering a treaty) that took place in Iceland, which is decidedly not federal land.
And following this fruitcup's logic, all federal district courts and circuit courts of appeal would be located in Washington DC.
Yeah, this guy's got cred.
To fully determine what kind of cred a blog has, it can help to go into the archives and see if the passage of time has been kind to the blogger's "analysis". Here's a post header from a December 28 story (http://nashuaadvocate.blogspot.com/2004/12/news-election-2004-president-bush-to.html):
News: Election 2004: President Bush to Be Subpoenaed; Blackwell Tries to Avoid Sworn Testimony; Over a Dozen Members of Congress to Challenge Election
Er, was Bush subpoenaed? I don't recall that happening. And in any event, the only mention of Bush being subpoenaed is in the post header; there's nothing in the story about it.
The NA's original raison d'etre was to chronicle (Republican) election fraud in Ohio. From that same "story":
In a sign that Votergate news stories will soon become impossible for the mainstream media to ignore, news of ground-breaking developments in the national scandal is now coming so fast and so furiously through internet channels that The Advocate strains to report it all in a timely fashion.
Yep, all that fraud in Ohio. Looking back lo these three months, the only "ground-breaking" development in the Ohio fraud story involved left-wing moonbat groups like ACORN registering fictional characters to vote.
Since the NA is so concerned about electoral integrity, I urge our readers to drop this fruitball a line and point out a story about real electoral misdeeds that he might want to keep an eye on.
I encourage other bloggers to dive into the archives of this very credible blog (according to that credible journalist, NonMonkey) and find other examples of "breaking news" and analysis that time, and reality, have battered into a wispy vapor of fiction.
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Don't blame abortion
David Brooks' analysis of issues that have damaged our democracy is very lame ("How Blackmun & Co. have injured our democracy," April 25).
Amid the clamor of Terri Schiavo, the abuses at Abu Ghraib, the Patriot Act, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist addressing a religious rally railing against the judiciary, is abortion the cause of democracy's "injuries"?
Janis Sarles, Minneapolis.
Here's something else that's lame: not reading the article that one criticizes. Brooks' thesis is that the decision of Roe v. Wade was based on a matter of public policy, and that matters of public policy a left to elected representatives, not unaccountable judges. So hence, "abortion" has not hurt democracy. Nor has the Patriot Act, Terri Schiavo, or Bill Frist for that matter (BTW: Christians are Americans too, you douchebag). Brooks argues, quite convincingly, that imperialist judges injure democracy.
And what about the "damage" that abortion does? I bet Janis doesn't care.
Janis' real problem with democracy - or more accurately: a representative republic - is that the electorate are not issued the special glasses that Supreme Court justices get that allow them to see "penumbras" in the 14th Amendment. We need an oligarchy to keep us slack-jawed yokels in line. Heaven forbid you folks try to create a right the way the framers intended: via the legislative process or Constitutional amendment. You know: consensus.
Hmmm. Come to think of it, is this really about "rights"?
Or is it about power?
Today we have a Nonmonkey Strib Columnist Fact Check. It's a small one, but it blends well with a post I'm working on for later today or tomorrow. Guy who knows stuff writes in today's edition:
Even if you agreed with [Ann Coulter's] political views -- and she has an absolute right to express them -- her manner of speech was so inflammatory and her derogatory ripostes so intimidating that both campuses she plucked last week (a total take of $50,000 or more) are still reverberating. That's not a good thing, but it has the potential to have good consequences.
Those good consequences would be catching Nonmonkey in a fact fudge.
Dunno who paid for Coulter's appearance at St. Olaf, but she didn't "pluck" one dime from St. Thomas:
Coulter spoke at the university on April 18. She was a guest of the school's chapter of the College Republicans and a student newspaper, the Standard, but neither organization paid her speaking fee. That was covered by the Young America's Foundation, a Herndon, Va., organization that bills itself as an outreach program for conservative youth.
But wait! Maybe he wasn't fudging facts after all. Later in the column he contradicts himself:
Why any student group would want to enable her with a $25,000 check in order to see their roommates' veins, pop, I don't know. And why any college would let some off-campus group underwrite the fireworks is truly a mystery. At St. Olaf, a student speakers' committee booked Coulter, but at St. Thomas, the bloviator's big bucks were paid for by the Young America's Foundation, a Virginia-based conservative group that reveres Reagan.
OK, so I guess he's just a crappy writer. Or he's just trying to cover all his bases like the Catholic/Protestant, Twins/Red Sox fan that he is.
And one other point: what is so bad about an off-campus group paying to counter the hate speech that typically rounds the campus circuit like that of holocaust denier Noam Chomsky?
And one more question: would Nonmonkey ever derisively describe an organization as "a liberal group that reveres Fidel Castro"?
UPDATE - YET ONE MORE THING: If NonMonkey wishes to be the Hate Speech Thought Police, perhaps he should keep an eye on his own backyard.
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
The Strib provided the forum knowing full well that it would bring the whack jobs and revisionists out of the woodwork. Generally, Pierson Yecke's name only has to appear in print in order to incite the confused masses who harbor a totally irrational hatred of the woman. Let her actually profer an opinion or pen a commentary article and these same nut cases go absolutely batty, as demonstrated by the FOUR negative responsorials printed for yesterdays paper. I will not reproduce each word of these inanities, but will give you a taste of each one:
Maybe Pa needed Prozac
"Another way of looking at the Ingall's wanderings is to conclude that Pa was unstable, and subjected his family - over and over - to needless hardships."
Bruce Kittilson, Golden Valley
Now remember, Pierson Yecke only used the Ingall's family so that she could parallel the timeline for technological change. Pa's 'wanderings' while amusing to Bruce, are not germane. Methinks Bruce might be the one needing Prozac.
Next contestant, Louise Edwards-Simpson. Area of expertise - semantic gymnastics:
Beyond the Wilder books
"Cheri Pierson Yecke's April 18 column on 'Little House' lessons itself offers another lesson, albeit an inadvertant one, when she says, 'During their lifetimes, they went from meeting native Indians and seeing wild buffalo to seeing two world wars and witnessing the introduction of electricity, the telephone, penicillin, movies, television, air travel and space travel.' Her statement implies that Native Americans are part of the historical past and not included in the dynamic space age."
Louise Edwards-Simpson, Plymouth; assistant professor of history, College of St. Catherine.
Idiot. Again, the point of the article was to illustrate and convey a sense of the dramatic change that took place in the course of one life. This woman is looking for racism in the article, and she thinks she found it. How do these people read anything without subsequently writing to their beloved Star Tribune? Another:
Preparing for change
"I was disappointed by the conclusion Cherie Pierson Yecke drew at the end of her column. Noting that Ingalls Wilder lived through 'astonishing' changes, and that a similar 'journey lies ahead for each of us,' Yecke managed to see in those facts a need for a 'commitment to something lager than ourselves.'
"No, what prepares us for change is a good education: an education that teaches independent thinking, how to evaluate facts and make decisions. Educators should know that, and most educators do."
Judy Bridell, Minneapolis
Judy, Judy, Judy! I was disappointed that you chose to see this as a chance to slam your favorite punching bag and imply that Yecke is a substandard educator, instead of reading the article for the nostalgic and thought-provoking treat that it was.
These people are miserable.
Fortunately, there are morons out there that write letters to the Strib that allows me to take the laserbeam focus off the female genitalia and refocus it on some identity feminist's butt-head:
An example of misogyny
An April 24 article (it was a letter, and can be found here -ed.) regarding young men using a pornographic picture on a button and wearing it to school with the words "I love your vagina" demonstrates the very misogynist and angry thinking that Carrie Rethlefson and Emily Nixon, the Winona High School students, are protesting against by wearing their button with the simple phrase of "I (heart) my vagina."
The button the young women wear is a declaration of the message behind "The Vagina Monologues," including pride in being female, a catalyst to enact positive change in the way society views and treats women, and a declaration of the right to freedom from violence because of being female.
The letter writer's suggestion depicts an attitude of hostility and violence toward women, and if "his" button were allowed to be worn it may constitute sexual harassment. Unfortunately his malicious disregard of women as being whole human beings, rather than objects/vaginas to be exploited, is all too common.
Susan Strauss, Eden Prairie.
So in order to understand the message, you would have had to see a feminist play?
I was not a communications major in college, but it seems to me that that's a pretty shitty way of communicating a message.
Anyway, thanks to Sooz for illustrating for us a great indication of when the argument is lost: name calling. You've heard it all before: conservatives are stupid; if you oppose Affirmative Action you're a racist; oppose same-sex marriage you are a homophobe bigot.
If you think someone is a moron for wearing a stupid button that in and of itself is apropos of nothing, why you are a misogynistic woman beater.
"But what about the dialogue this stunt has produced?" you ask, "isn't that what these girls intended to do?"
These chicks said that they wore their buttons to "raise awareness" of violence against women (those with astute BS detectors will recognize that when some activist says they are trying to "raise awareness" of something, it almost always means that they are trying to look like they are "making a difference" without really doing anything of consequence).
OK. What is the public discourse about on this subject?
Their right to wear a button that carries the word "vagina" on it at school. Free speech in schools is a fairly well-settled question. All these chicks did was put a colossal waste of time out on the floor for debate.
Gee, I'm against woman-beating too. However, instead of wearing a button, I just refrain from punching women. And there have been many deserving women who have benefited from my morality and observance of the law (not the least of which was that beotch that cut me off in traffic this morning only to creep along in front of me 15 mph under the speed limit).
[Warning: if you have tender sensibilities STOP READING NOW]
So to all you lowlifes out there that think that people who disagree with you or disapprove of your tasteless, vacuous symbolic "messages" are (circle one) idiots / homophobes / bigots / racists / Cro-Magnons / misogynists I have a message (and I think I speak for a lot of people here):
Since you are admitting your defeat in the arena of ideas by resorting to name calling, do please take your vagina button and shove it up your butt.
And then turn it sideways.
With that little pin thing unhooked so it tears your flesh.
And then go eat 5 pounds of super-hot buffalo wings.
Monday, April 25, 2005
One can still hear the creaking of those still-moving tectonic plates today. Like a steamroller set in motion with no driver, the Earth will do what it will; all powerless to stop it. Yet those initial moanings from deep within the earth when Pangaea was torn apart still echo in our human consciousness to this day. We are all bound...
Sorry, but if you found those two paragraphs the paragon of an exercise in triteness veiled in the pretense of gravity, then I am very interested in what you think about this. If anybody can tell me what the point of this overwrought waste of column inches is, please feel free to post to comments.
And on a completely unrelated topic, it would be a waste of a perfectly good post header if I didn't mention that that phrase I lifted from the Bard is a perfect description of this fool and pretty much anything that leaves his mouth.
Sunday, April 24, 2005
Anyhoo, I have posted a new poll in the usual place. Since a couple of teenage girls think wearing a button saying "I [heart] my vagina" communicates a message against
One vote per computer per day.
And stop looking at my crotch.
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Isn't Earth Day supposed to remind us, among other things, about how much we humans (particularly those employed by and running American corporations) are doing to contribute to global warming? I know I was pretty darn cold going from my car to the office door yesterday. I could have used a little global warming. I recall watching the Twins take on the Tigers in Detroit last night, and it was snowing. Some global warming!
Of course, Earth Day could not have come and gone without the Star Tribune paying homage by publishing some lefty anti-American claptrap about evil SUV's:
"Just as I was getting into my Prius (the hybrid car that makes me vaguely smug) I felt the deep bass vibrations of a stereo booming through the heavy steel of a yellow Hummer. It rolled into the parking lot, top lights lit, and the lights continued to burn as the tall young driver sauntered toward the student union."
"You scumbag, I thought. You are the epitome of the problem! How can you drive this monument to American arrogance, this fuel-devouring war machine?"
The preceding is an excerpt from Chuck Dayton's commentary piece in the Minneapolis Star Tribune for Earth Day. You pretty much get the gist of it with that alone, so I won't even direct you to the online version (OK, I will, but you'll have to register). Dayton's short bio after the piece indicates he is an environmental lawyer and board member of an organization called the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy.
Listen to the tone of this article. Is there really any doubt that these people hate this country? His sentence "How can you drive this monument to American arrogance, this fuel-devouring war machine?" speaks volumes. In one sentence, he tips his hand about his resentment for America's preeminent place in the world (it bugs him that we are successful!) and is disdain for the military that protects his right to spew hatred for his own country.
I absolutely love it that, at least in Minnesota, Earth day and its global warming reminders always seem to fall on unseasonably cold days. But please, if you all could burn a little more fossil fuel today, and destroy the ozone a little more, I would appreciate it. I need to go golfing tomorrow and I would like the temperature a few degrees higher than the forecast.
Friday, April 22, 2005
The Matt Peiken of the SPP takes this non story and turns it into a story by pointing out that it is a non story!!
The first two paragraphs are so damned enlightening, I warn you to shade your eyes:
It's hard to find a student at the Community of Peace Academy charter school who feels like part of a minority group. Then again, 96 percent of the students are people of color — two-thirds of them Hmong.
When the St. Paul school's high school choir learned it would perform alongside the One Voice Mixed Chorus, filled largely with gay and lesbian adults, students didn't see the parallel of one supposedly beleaguered minority collaborating with another. [my emphasis]
Hey, Matt, pull off the Lefty goggles you see the world through and understand something: most people don’t see the world as you do because we simply don’t think about it.
That is, most of us who spend our days working and raising families don’t think twice about the race or sexual orientation of the person standing next to us. Nor to we give a Damn.
It’s you incurable lovers of the religion of diversity who insist on pointing out that which means nothing to most of the people in this freaking world.
Take a clue from the Wang Vang. The 15 year old you quoted in paragraph 3: “I don't really care who I'm singing with, as long as I get to sing.”
See that, Matt? Even the kid you quoted, and I bet others expressed the same point, is saying it’s a non story. Why do you insist on trying to make it one?
You answered that question in paragraph 4: “With news events often spotlighting the differences that Hmong and gay-lesbian cultures have with the mainstream…”
Thank you for making my point, Matt. The point being that the MSM and their allies on the left continue to drive wedges between “groups” by ceaselessly pointing out the differences between those groups.
While most were congratulation Colin Powell, in 2000, on his nomination to be Secretary of State, the MSM was talking about him being the first black to hold the post. Then comes Condoleezza Rice and she’s the first black female to hold the post.
I’m fear for the day when a Democratic candidate for president is black, female, Hispanic, or pick your Lefty category. I fear it because, if they don’t win, the loss will be pinned on the ever-popular “ism” demon: racism, sexism, and homophobia.
I’m babbling now but I don’t care.
My prediction is – and this is not a new one – the first non-white male (aka minority) president of the United States will be a Republican.
Why, you ask, would I make such a prediction when the Dems are the Big Tent Party, champions of the downtrodden, etc, etc, etc? It’s simple.
The Left continues to attempt to prove how inclusive they are by pointing it out – remember when President-elect Clinton stated that his cabinet was going to look like America, remember his dialogues on race. They jump up and down waiving their arms and yelling, “Look at me, I’m shaking hands with a black guy. See how inclusive I am.”
It reminds me of a scene replayed in many hockey games where the defender hooks an opposing player to the ice and throws his hands above his head as if to say, “I didn’t do nothing.”
It’s the rest of us, on the Right, who don’t give a damn about age, race, sex, sexual orientation – and prove it by not talking about it.
We prefer merit to any other criterion and that, my friends will win out over any candidate that has achieved their place because of their status as a minority.
That’s it, I’m done.
I’m off to Manhattan next week and won’t be posting until I return – although there’s plenty of material there so I may have to check in at least once.
Cute high school girls who are proud of their sexuality, and not afraid to show it? And the ACLU is involved? Watch out for howls of protest from the right. Meanwhile, notice how the wingnuts shift uncomfortably in their seats.
Of course this is the same old rendering of a charicature of the opposition (though he uses the term "wingnuts", to these people anyone to the right of Paul Wellstone is a wingnut) that makes an easier target for ridicule than, y'know, actually kicking ideas around. Yes we hyper-God-centered-religious zealots with our eggshell sensibilities are shocked, just SHOCKED, at the very sight of the word "vagina".
This wingnut would love for you "enlightened" francls to just once insult me to my face. I'd love to have the opportunity to strangle you with your own intestines.
LearnedFoot's Anger Management Counselor: Easy, killer. I think you need to write a haiku.
Luke is a loser.
Makes his own reality,
So he can insult.
Anyway, I was really going to unload on this lame-brained narcisisitic adolescent fool attention whore, as well as the girl in Winona, but Mitch beat me to it. And did it much better than anyone ever could. Go read it. Now.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
Setting aside the obvious fact that society has moved on over the past few thousand years, by what right does the Rev. Tom Brock think the majority should be able to vote to remove the existing legal rights of a minority (Letters, April 20)?
As Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn said, "Fifty-one percent of a nation can establish a totalitarian regime, suppress minorities and still remain democratic."
To allow the majority to persecute a minority is fundamentally un-American and unpatriotic.
Mark Hanlon, Eagan.
Note how the lefty is calling people who oppose same sex marriage "unpatriotic and Un-american." I thought that was our line.
No, "unpatriotic and Un-American" is better described as an oligarchy: y'know - rule by judicial fiat.
But enough about rhetorical niceties. Let's talk about the assertion that we want to "remove the existing legal rights of a minority."
They don't exist.
Quoting Minnesota Statutes section 517.03:
Subdivision 1. General. (a) The following marriages are prohibited: ***
(4) a marriage between persons of the same sex.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't come much more unequivocal than that. You won't find anything to the contrary in either the state or federal constitutions either. Unless you believe that the right to marry is everyone's natural right afforded by by some power higher than the legislature.
Too bad you people categorically deny the existence of natural rights.
And be careful how you attack the law also. If you're going to run to court saying that the purpose of marriage is not procreative, and thus the state has no legitimate interest in "discriminating" against gays, then you are going to have to explain away this provision in the same section:
(2) a marriage between an ancestor and a descendant, or between a brother and a sister, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood or by adoption; [and]
(3) a marriage between an uncle and a niece, between an aunt and a nephew, or between first cousins, whether the relationship is by the half or the whole blood, except as to marriages permitted by the established customs of aboriginal cultures [are prohibited]
The purpose of this provision is not to merely rain on the incest parade, after all.
And if you're going to go down the equal protection road, you still have to deal with the incest prohibition. Will brothers be able to marry each other? How about an uncle and his nephew? After all, this law, designed to militate against genetic deformities in children wouldn't be applicable to two members of the same sex, who by definition cannot create genetically heterogeneous children with each other.
And what if you strike down the one man, one woman requirement but not the incest clause? As written, brothers would not be prohibited from marrying each other. An aunt could marry her niece, But she would be prohibited from marrying her nephew. I think that also raises an equal protection issue. A very sick and twisted equal protection issue; but an issue nonetheless.
In any event, thanks to all you gay marriage moonbats out there for making me have to think about uncle-nephew incest.
From today's S&S:
I was surprised by the election of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as pope. After the Bush administration's insistence that John Bolton represent the United States at the United Nations, I had assumed that we would insist Donald Rumsfeld be elected.
Theodore C. Harmon, Minneapolis.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Leeann Newcomb is a complete and utter moron. This is neither an attack nor an opinion; it is a statement of fact. A fact I can prove.
The Phesant Lane Mall in Nashua, NH has decided to bar non-chaperoned teens under the age of 16 on Friday and Saturday nights. The mall has also created a dress code that, admittedly, bans clothing that can be purchased at the mall.
Leann Newcomb, the above mentioned moron, takes exception to both,
"I feel as though if I want to drop my kids off, I should. They're responsible," said Leann Newcomb of Lowell, Mass., who was shopping Monday with her 15-year-old daughter, Ashley.
The Dress Code
"They sell that stuff," said Newcomb. "How are they going to tell the kids after they buy that stuff not to wear it? Isn't that a violation of your constitutional rights?" [emphasis added]
As I told you, Leeann Newcomb is a moron.
OOPS, I have an update for you. I was just rereading my US Constitution and found the following (with apologies to Leeann Newcomb):
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to wear gangsta pants half way down their butts with their undapants showing, and to wear bling bling that jingles and jangles about their neck, and to wear hip-hugging jeans that reveal the top of their thong panties and short shirts that show the bottom of their boobs when their arms are raised, and to say nonsensical crap like “yo, yo” and “busta move”, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Today, Nihilist in Golf Pants has wall to wall coverage of the observation of another historical day of infamy. Go read it all. It is possibly the best blog riff ever.
In his first public appearance as pope, Benedict XVI strode to the balcony and said something in Italian. A translator could not be secured by press time, but most who heard the speech thought he said either "it's good to be the pope" or "I declare world-wide martial law, beginning immediately".
Reactions to the new pope were decidedly negative. Most of those asked felt that this pope would do nothing to bring the Catholic Church closer to democritization. Many were especially turned off by the former Hitler Youth's fanatical defense of traditional church teachings.
"I feel that the church needs to connect more with the faithful, find out what they think about the important issues of the day," said Giovanni D'Amore, a Roman, in perfect English. D'Amore, who is not a Catholic added, "then he could incorporate their thoughts into church doctrine to make it fairer."
Fred Smoot, an American atheist vacationing in Rome, elbowed his way through the crowd to offer his opinion: "This pope offers no hope that the Catholic church will join the enlightenment and drag itself into the 21st century." When asked why he cared, since he was an atheist and not bound to follow the church's teachings, Smoot spontaneously combusted in an effort to think of an answer other than "because I want attention."
Others had a larger stake in the outcome of the Conclave. Serge Lovejoy, a Unitarian was hoping that he would be chosen to succeed John Paul II.
"I would have brought tolerance to the church," Lovejoy said. "Every day I arranged my crystals and prayed to the Goddess that they would choose me, so that I could bring enlightenment to the church." Lovejoy, who said that he would have taken "Pope Flippy the Ebullient" as his papal name added "I guess I'll have to wait until this old crank dies and try again."
Catholics were also underwhelmed by the selection. Mimi Hossenfeffer, an American Catholic said "Gee, I just wish that the church would just tailor its doctrine to what the rank and file Catholics think. I feel marginalized by the church's harsh stance on birth control, abortion and homosexual marriage."
She paused, then added, "I'm not so sure about this whole 'Jesus is the Son of God' thing either. Maybe the new pope should look into that as well."
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
He hates guns.
That; and he believes everybody is as incapable of thinking under stress as he is.
John is also confused – he said so himself in this well-written but utterly meaningless letter published in Tuesday’s SPP:
(John says) Your April 13 front-page story showed a carry permit holder firing his handgun. He said he obtained a permit after being robbed a second time at gunpoint and that, "It's a scary thing when they have a gun and you don't."
I am slightly confused by his newfound sense of security.
(Dementee says) Don’t sell yourself short, John, I bet you’re more than slightly confused. In fact, based on what follows, I bet your blood is swimming in aspirin to kill the headache caused by your confusion.
(John says) If an assailant comes up to you with a drawn loaded weapon, what good is a concealed weapon?
(Dementee says) Thanks for the softball, Johnny. If you have a gun to your forehead, having a concealed weapon is, in a word, useless. But, then, any properly trained person recognizes this and will not draw his or her weapon.
(John says) Do you expect the assailant to turn around while you reach into your jacket or purse for your trusty six-shooter? If the attacker refuses to look the other way are you supposed to reach for your weapon anyway, hoping that it will not arouse suspicion? What if the assailant does become suspicious and starts shooting at you? Are you really better off than you were before?
(Dementee says) No. No. No. No. That was easy, thanks John.
(John says) If the backers of this legislation could explain how this scenario is supposed to play out, it would really help the average Minnesotan see the benefits of this new law. Until then, one has to wonder what is happening to our state.
(Dementee says) Nice trick John, but your scenario is preposterous. You offer an example of when a concealed weapon is of no help whatsoever. As I said earlier, any properly trained individual will recognize that this is not the time to draw their weapon and will, therefore, keep it concealed.
You and other like-minded Lefties suffer from the illusion that anybody with a permit to pack heat is trolling the streets looking for a thug to shoot. You are a sad a pathetic man, John Gaertner. Sad and Pathetic.
Let me give you two possible outcomes to the scenario you posed.
1) The individual carrying the concealed weapon immediately realizes the weapon will do no good and will comply with the demands of the thug. Throughout the transaction they take note of the dirt bag so they can offer a good description to the authorities.
2) The Leftie will curse the existence of guns and question the thief in an effort to understand what went wrong in their life. The Leftie will wonder aloud if there are additional government programs that can be created to help this poor soul take advantage of the gifts that God gave them. The Leftie will empty his bowels and bladder. In the meantime, the victim in scenario 1 will arrive on the scene, immediately recognize this as a prime opportunity to put their training to use, and drop the slime ball with one shot. At which time you will again empty your bowels and bladder.
Sad and pathetic, John. Sad and Pathetic.
AP (Yahoo): Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany, the Roman Catholic Church's leading hard-liner, was elected the new pope Tuesday in the first conclave of the new millennium.
MSNBC: Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Germany, a hard-line guardian of conservative doctrine, was elected the new pope Tuesday evening...
Reuters (MyWay) (emphasis added): German Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the strict defender of Catholic orthodoxy for the past 23 years, was elected Pope on Tuesday despite a widespread assumption he was too old and divisive to win election.
Ratzinger's stern leadership of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, the modern successor to the Inquisition, delighted conservative Catholics but upset moderates and other Christians whose churches he described as deficient.
Fortunately for you the reader, I am not going to launch into yet another tirade about how the Church is in the truth business and it's arrogant to hope for a more "moderate" pontiff to be appointed to mould church doctrine more to your version of said truth.
I don't have to, because Benedict XVI already did it for me:
""We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as definitive and has as its highest value one's own ego and one's own desires," he declared at a pre-conclave Mass in St. Peter's Basilica.
And that's about as close as you are going to get to seeing a pope say "F- you".
But if you like profanity, Swiftee offers the same opinion.
Now let's turn our attention to filling the vacancy left by Ratzinger's ascendancy.
SISYPHUS FOR CARDINAL!
How to Defend Your Corporation from a Hostile Takeover
Imagine that you are sitting at your guilded desk in your $50,000 chair poring over plat maps of Colorado trying to determine which swath of country would be best for you to buy and clear-cut so you can build your seventh mansion. Then imagine your butler walks in and tells you that some corporation has announced a tender offer to your shareholders. You do not like this company one bit, as it believes in paying a "living wage" and offers its employees Cadillac health care benefits.
What do you do?
Well there are several methods to defeat an unwelcome corporate suitor. Many may require amending your articles of incorporation (such as a "flip in" or a "control flip") while others may involve a simple transfer of your corporation's major assets (like the "crown jewel" defense). But by far my favorite is the so-called Pac Man defense.
The Pac Man defense works something like this: once a corporation announces its tender offer for your corporation, you in turn announce your intentions to acquire that company. If this doesn't scare the suitor off, you then proceed to find financing ("leverage") to make good on your threat.
Now, the Pac Man defense is not without it's pitfalls. I'm sure the formost objection in the KAR reader's mind would be that financiers (like banks and investment bankers) will want to look at your corporation's books to make sure it is creditworthy. This could result in you accidentially granting them access to your set of "real" legers, as opposed to the "cooked" ones you use for your dealings with the government.
Okay, I think the moonbats have surfed away by now. Here's my real post:
I'll just do a drive-by fisking. This letter appears in today's Strib:
An April 16 letter writer is "amazed" that tolerant liberals could be intolerant of people who want to pass an amendment to the state Constitution banning gay marriage -- implying some sort of hypocrisy at play here .
Not at all. Liberals are simply intolerant of intolerance. [To be more accurate, liberals are intolerant of those who disagree with them that we ought to turn the United States into France or Cuba] A brief glance at world history shows intolerance to be destructive to society while tolerance has proved to be beneficial. [You mean like if the Romans were tolerant of their Vandal invaders; if England tolerant of the Germans' view that they should rule Europe; the Tibetans' ongoing tolerance of the Chinese?]
That the writer believes "homosexuality is not a normal or natural state of being" is fine. The U.S. Constitution protects his right to hold that opinion, just as it protects the right of us all to not be "normal" sometimes (as long as we don't hurt anybody).
What gets liberals riled is when people enact into law opinions that damage the civil liberties of fellow citizens [which ones? You mean like tax laws which inhibit my civil liberty to own property? No that would be ridiculous.] without demonstrating a compelling reason. For example: How, exactly, will my marriage be harmed if a gay couple gets married? [That's not the argument that has been advanced. I have gotten into this before, and I will again, but right now, I'm afraid of this being detected by a moonbat. Just in case a moonbat might scroll down this far, I will insert a line graph as a diversionary tactic to add more authenticity to the ruse. Nonmoonbats can just ignore the graph and read on.]
Liberals take a longer view. [You mean like how they argue against private Social Security accounts because the stock market went down last week? That kind of long view? Don't make me laugh.] If citizens can gather together like a lynch mob to disenfranchise homosexuals, who's next on the hit list? [Disenfranchise people of a right they do not possess? That's rich. Speaking of disenfranchisement, what do you think of the election fraud thing in Wisconsin, Mike? *crickets chirping*] Me? [Hopefully, starting with the free speech thing.] You? [No. I'll just buy a gun.]
The writer can "question the lifestyle of a small percentage of human beings" all he wants. He just can't use those "questions" or opinions about normality to enact laws creating second-class Americans. [Translation: "Liberation is at hand North Dakota! The sheep will soon be fair game!"]
Michael F****, Caledonia, Minn. [Name censored in case this guy vanity googles. I don't want anyone this dull following me into a bathroom somewhere.]
So there you have it: there is no need to despair when the M&A menace arrives on your doorstep. With the techniques I have outlined here, you can assure yourself that you will control your corporation in perpetuity. After all, the whole reason you got into business in the first place was so you could feel the joy of liquidating it yourself and putting all those chumps on the unemployment line.
UP NEXT: Personal Hygiene: Patchouli Is No Substitute for Soap.
LittleFoot#1: Okay daddy. You be the dinosaur and I'll be the monkey.
LearnedFoot: What kind of dinosaur am I?
LF#1: A T-rex!
LF: But don't T-rexes eat little monkeys?
LF#1: You're a nice T-rex!
LF: OK then, I am a nice T-rex, and you are my little monkey.
LF#1: No! I am not your monkey!
LF: You're not? Then whose monkey are you?
LF#1: I'm nobody's monkey!
Not making that up. Did I mention that she is three years old?
Monday, April 18, 2005
(Note: Don’t click on the air purifier link; it’ll take you to something that has no relation to the advertiser.)
I wouldn’t say I’m an avid listener, but I like to spend some time each day working on suppressing my gag reflex.
While listening yesterday, I also heard a spot announcing the search for an account executive. This is a station on the move.
Funny thing is, I have yet to hear a paid spot. It’s all PSAs all the time. In fact, if I hear the “Stroke” PSA one more time, I’m going to buy my own schedule on the off chance I can bump it from the rotation.
Now there’s an idea; create a series of satirical spots ripping the Left by supporting their numbskull ideology. They’ll never get it.
When that happens, I politely request that they never, ever visit this blog again. (Readers may recall the time when Power Line sent some of its thugs our way).
But in an effort to make sure they go away, and stay away, I'm employing a new tactic: writing about things to which moonbats cannot relate.
Yeah, today I'm Golf Blogging.
So what do you and your other middle-aged giggly frat-boy soft children of leisure friends do when you can't make it to your favorite golf course for a loop? You know: those annoying stretches when your Lear jet is in the shop for federally mandated maintenance so the only way you can get to the TPC at Sawgrass is to fly with the Great Unwashed Masses in "First" Class on some proletariat airline? What do you do?
Bill has found the answer: Birdie Balls!
Bill bought a dozen of these babies a couple of weeks ago. Let me tell ya': the Birdie Ball is the greatest invention since Gizoogle. They're shaped like two-inch sections of PVC pipe tapered at both ends, but when you hit them, they fly like a real golf ball. You can draw or fade them and take a full swing at them, but they only travel about 40 yards. And even the most well-struck ball will not crack the neighbor's window. We have field-tested that claim already. Several times.
Bill and I have fashioned a 3 hole Birdie Ball golf course out of our yards (18 holes if you play the same 3 holes backwards and forwards three times). We named it "Winged Toe at Learned Crossing." Our summer-long match play series has already begun (Bill and I have won one match apiece).
I have been told by a reliable source that there are few in the MOB or NA that golf. I find that hard to believe since we all know this guy has told us that he can play the guitar, bass, drums, dulcimer, glockenspiel, cello, harp, harpsichord, harmonica, hambone, sitar, clavicle, triangle, quadrangle, and cowbells. Anybody with that wide-ranging talent could certainly knock a three iron stiff to the pin.
Up next in the "Bore the Moonbat Trolls into Submission" series: Flip-ins, Control-flips, Crown Jewels or Pac Man: What is the Best Strategy for Defending Your Obscenely Profitable Corporation from a Hostile Take Over?
Friday, April 15, 2005
Pathetic Loser Watch
I am a really good satirist. When
This little insignificant shitbag wrote a screed that could have been written by someone like me lampooning someone like him.
The consensus seems to be that this little twerp is too insignificant and vacuous to merit a response. I agree. He's your typical I'm-so-much-smarter-than-you-because-I-can-use-a-thesaurus-and-work-Sartre-or-Camus-into-any-conversation. [Here, LearnedFoot surfs over to the little twat's blog, presses Ctrl-F, and types "Camus"] Yep, there's Camus, sixth post from the top.
You can tell that Kevin thinks that he's really smart (they all do). But y'see, Kevin is a "literary editor," which means that he can 1) read; and 2) operate a pencil. Reasoning skills are not necessary. And it is reasoning, not how many pretentious French philosophers' books you've read, is the hallmark of intelligence. In his little masterbatory exercise, he demonstrates quite well that he possesses not one shred of reason. It is demonstrated well in his rant, which is nothing more than a string of insults with no examples to back them up, and no truths from which they are reasoned. At least we at the KAR back up our insults with facts. We don't merely say "this guy is a moron"; we say: "this guy is a moron, and here's why..."
So I'll leave the little twerp alone. I'm sure he's used to being alone.
Well, OK. One quick ad hominem:
In the first paragraph of his twaddle, he paints the local right-wing bloggers with the same broad brush (emphasis mine):
It's an ugly spectacle, this cavalcade of unwarranted angst, these soft and comfortable men so proudly indulging their silly warrior fantasies.
You can almost hear him choking the chicken while he typed that sentence.
But anyway, if you are going to call someone "soft," you probably should NOT look like this:
You can also find that picture next to the dictionary entry for "dateless wonder".
Crawl back under your rock marshmallow boy.
UPDATE WITH BUMP: Mr. IQ of 80 With a Thesaurus continues to prove my point:
Truth be told, I enjoyed these attempts to insult mevery much. However, I have too much on my plateright nowto get into a pissing match with pissants. Itmight be fun, but it's more likely to be tedious and I'vethoroughly exorcised my urge to engage thethoughtless right on any level whatsoever. Al-though someone who cares about these clods mightwant to explain to them the difference betweenthe literal and figurative sense of a word (say, forexample, "soft").
A quick scan reveals still no signs of any kind of intelligence. Or an ability to comprehend satire (i.e. lampooning his use of the word "soft").
BTW Kevie, as long as I have your attention: you could not handle my (or that of many of those you malign) intellectual firepower. You are a little firecracker.
I have a nuke. I am armed with somewhat bigger guns. You have done nothing to prove otherwise. Anyone can string together a bunch of insults.
And learn how to use a spacebar.
Glad I could septuple your traffic today. Unfortunately for you, that gravy train has pulled away.
Nihilist's Papal Name...
...has been selected by the readers. It was close for a while at the beginning with "Pope Ringo I" and "Pope Beavis the Flatulent" (my personal favorite) running hard out of the gates. But eventually, as all things do on this blog, the absurd won the day. Winning in a laugher with an astonishing 42% of the vote, when asked by his papal chamberlain what his name will be, Nihilist shall proclaim proudly for all to hear:
Jus' Call Me Tha Pizzope, Beotch!
Good luck with your papacy, Nihilist. And don't forget about that "singing the Lord's Prayer" thing we talked about. Fo' shizzle my Pizzle.
Dementee Gets a Meal
Here we announced that we kidnapped a moonbat, and that Dementee would eat it if we didn't receive $3 million by today. The deadline has passed. Here are the numbers:
Amount received by competing kidnappers to free a dumb animal (bunny): $25,515.62
Amount received by us to free a dumb animal (moonbat): $0
Dementee has released the following statement:
MOONBAT WAS YUMMY! ME PREPARE A SPECIAL DISH: SIRLOIN OF MOONBAT WITH LIGHT, TASTY BERNAISE SAUCE! ME ALSO PUT SOME FENNEL IN SAUCE! ME LOVE FENNEL! ME LOVE SAYING "FENNEL"! FENNEL FENNEL FENNEL FENNEL FENNEL FENNEL FENNEL FENNEL FENNEL FENNEL FENNEL...
My favorites are the ones that imply America needs democracy. There is one out there for which I have no image, but it says "Bring Democracy to the World" and the words 'the World' are crossed out and replaced with 'America'. Wow, so clever. I suppose none of these idiots is even aware that we do not live in a democracy, but rather a representative republic.
Then there are the ones that try to take the starch out of the Christian right by declaring "Jesus is a Liberal," or "Jesus isn't a Republican." How do they know what political affiliation Jesus tends toward? I love seeing the Jesus stickers on the same bumper as the abortion rights bumper stickers. No conflict of interest there!
This one is wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to start. Maybe just a one word question: "When?"
With stuff like this to read in traffic for the next four years, I predict a brisk business for collision repair shops.
While the Right rallies, and shares their disdain for contributing to the betterment of society, let's not got lost on the true tragedy that should be remembered today.
Let me just grab my blue pencil, and make that phrase a little more accurate:
While the Right rallies, and shares their disdain for contributing yet even more to the betterment of society, let's not got lost on the true tragedy that should be remembered today.
The way these people talk, you'd think that we don't already pay any taxes.
Oh, and what does that orange sign over there say?
Happy to pay more for a better Minnesota!
Yep, that one needs to be revised as well:
Happy to make someone else pay more for a better Minnesota!
There, that's better.
Some of those friends, predictably enough, have gotten in on thewhole blogging phenomenon. A few of the most unbearable, corporate whores all, have banded together to produce this witless waste of server space. In fact, these snickering middle-aged fratboys have put together what may be the single shittiest blogin the known universe. Reading it is like reading the diaries of spoiled teenage boys, a relentless farrago of juvenile drivel and abusive ignorance. How these people got through college was a mystery to me until I considered how easy things can be for thoseclueless, overconfident assholes who consider a lifetime slobberingon some CEO’s wingtips the apex of human existence. That people this fucking stupid can thrive is perhaps the surest sign that ours is a nation in inexorable decline.
I could fisk practically every other word of this twerp's e-vomit. How hard should I hammer this whack-job?
Closed Circuit to Noodles and Strommie: He's not very nice to you guys either.
Thursday, April 14, 2005
Paperwork be banned!
Where did I put that lighter?
Burn, Baby, Burn!
Doug hypothesizes that beer is the solution (pun intended):
Words emerge slowly
So blogging suffers slowdown
Perhaps beer would help
Swiftee is, well, incoherent:
stringing a few words
like telling secrets to cops
haiku not for me
keep the libs off base
ride a harley davidson
hide the engineer
Fishsticks - been there, done that.
We have yet to hear from the rhetorical-loogie-hocker-in-chief.
And that guy that's so angry that he has to fisk songs could also use some chamomile tea for the soul.
"I don't think Wisconsin should become known as a state where we shoot cats," Doyle told reporters in the Capitol. The state has been the butt of jokes, he said, and his office has been getting calls and e-mails asking how Wisconsin could allow the shooting of feral cats.
But as far as good humor goes, the mental image of some redneck whacking Felix isn't nearly as funny as the reasons the Left-Wing Fraud machine gives for keeping the corrupt electoral status quo in place.
The Wisconsin bill requiring voters to show a Photo ID, has passed both houses of the Wisconsin legislature (on the strength of Democrats who see this as an opportunity to play both sides of the issue). Wisconsin's drooling moonbat governor, defending the franchise of Jive Q Turkey, Mary Poppins and vampires everywhere, has promised to veto the bill.
Now would be a good time to go to the bathroom, because this is so funny, you will wet your pants laughing.
Ready? OK, here are the three most compelling reasons the Wisconsin LWFM offers for rejecting the Photo ID bill; and remember, I am not making these up:
1) Because it would make poll workers in small towns feel weird:
Tim White of Verona said there's no need for election officials to question voters' identities or qualifications to cast ballots in the close-knit area where he lives.
"The poll workers and clerk know just about everyone," White said. "It would feel pretty funny to present one of the poll workers I've known for 30 years with a photo ID."
2) Because the ID requirement unfairly discriminates against the young, the elderly, the disabled, the poor and minorities who tend to forget their wallets in larger numbers:
[They] cite concerns that the measure will disenfranchise voters, particularly the elderly, minorities and the poor. Stone and Leibham, the main sponsors of the bill, argued Tuesday those concerns have been addressed.
Coggs told the committee of the case of his son, Ki-jana, who registered several years ago when he turned 18 and voted, only to attempt to vote in a subsequent election and find his name erroneously had been taken off the list. He did not have his wallet and, without an ID, could not re-register and could not vote, Coggs said.
3) Picture IDs are apparently too burdensome for elderly people to carry around:
Doyle said Wednesday that the photo ID requirement would be a new barrier for up to 150,000 senior citizens who have been voting all their lives. He added, "I'll veto it again." The governor first spiked it in 2003 before widespread problems were found in Milwaukee's vote for president in November.
Also, with a photo ID requirement, the elderly and those in nursing homes "can vote, but it's going to be a pain in the butt for them to do so," he added.
HA HA HA HA HA HA
Eat shit and die losers.
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Genius Paul Gauguin.
Tahitian’s in native dress.
Oh, how I love art!
Nihilist for Pope:
You will not have to shake hands
To signal your peace.
St. Kate is so nice
Her gulag would be a treat.
Mints on all pillows.
Is your computer broken?
Sandy blogs for all.
Moonbats taste icky.
Stop Dementee from feasting:
Cough up the three mil.
Bogus Doug has moved.
His new web-site has no feed,
Sharpreader fails me.
Lewis will return?
Radio rumor mill churns.
Writing lame haiku.
Your criticism is true,
But it beats working.
...to the demente(e)d:
Dementee is pleased
Lefty meltdown in full swing
Me want group hug please
A dog lifts its leg
I hear a tinkle sprinkle
Monkey spleen makes me hungry
Pass the horseradish
Noodles has one also, that works better in the context of the post preceeding it, so I'll just link 'em.
We still have yet to hear from several of you. And it's imperative that this guy fire off at least ten haikus before sombody gets hurt.
We have kidnapped and threatened to execute a moonbat;
I almost stabbed a dinner guest in the eye with a fork;
And I have metaphorically bludgeoned moonbats with a reference tome.
But the havoc has not been confined to this blog alone. Oh no. This past week we've seen an especially cranky JB come out of hibernation and level an unprovoked assault on the Boss. Doug is threatening to drink bad wine.
And then there is this invective-laden thread on Shot in the Dark, that quickly degenerated into a bunch of people hocking rhetorical loogies at each other.
We all need to take a step back and relax a little.
One disclaimer before I continue: this post in no way abrogates my promise that if any moonbats follow me into the bathroom to "talk" to me, I will be very assertive in my disapproval of that behavior. I will soften my position slightly in the spirit of the goodwill I am trying to foster here: if you do follow me into the bathroom, and I do demonstrate the errors of your ways, and you are sufficiently contrite for your transgression, I might help you pick up your teeth.
OK, now I want everybody to participate in this anger management exercise.
Write a haiku.
Yes, even you lefty-bloggers over there. You folks have generated enough rage in the past year to power a large city.
Haikus are easy: 3 lines; the first and last lines must contain 5 syllables and the middle line must contain 7. Haikus are usually about nature, but they don't have to be. I will start:
Fuzzy, cute kitties
Do not go to Wisconsin
Or you will get shot.
Pounding bass, and gravitas.
Iron Maiden rules.
There, I feel better already.
And no, this is not a meme. This is for your own good. All you angry bloggers out there: start in on your 17-syllable therapy.
If successful, your minds will be cleared of the counterproductive rage, and you too will again be able to come up with such great lines as "hocking rhetorical loogies".
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
I suggest you start with the proabortion ones. That oughta get the Left to sit up and take notice.
LEARNEDFOOT UPDATE: Seems that a local leftyblogger caught Dementee in a Gotcha.
Since there is at least one of you out there reading, I'd be interested in your take on more important matters like the hijacking of 10 electoral votes. I was especially interested in hearing what y'all had to say about the issue of the integrity of elections after all that caterwauling about improprieties (by the right) in Ohio blew up in your faces.
I kept calling for justifications and responses, but it there was an eerie silence.
You're so gosh-darn cute Rew.
The proposal is ingenious in it’s simplicity. A law mandating a minimum level of classroom funding, who could be against this?
Czarina Schaubach, for one. She wants more money in the Classroom; let’s give it to her. But make her take it away from the administration.
Some states stand to drive a lot of cash out of the office into the classroom. I checked the organization’s web site and found Minnesota is already pretty close to the 65% threshold. But, even moving from the current 63.6% will add $92,000,000 to the classrooms of Minnesota.
As one who is married to a teacher, I’m awed by the number of non-teaching staff members that haunt the halls of Minnesota’s schools. She refers to the Superintendent’s car allowance as the Lexus allowance and simply gags at his district-paid Country Club membership.
Let’s face it; the schools in this country are too damn top-heavy and could stand for a bit of downsizing.
As citizens, we’ve been battling both the union and the administrations, how about we turn them against each other?
Instead, as a public service to our readers, the KAR will demonstrate what you should do if you ever find yourself cornered in a bathroom by two moonbat lesbo activists, portrayed in a series of vignettes, starring me:
Moonbat 1: We would like to discuss with you the reasons why gays have a "civil right" to marry.
LearnedFoot: There is no such civil right. The government has a legitimate interest in advancing the nuclear family as the basic unit of society. The purpose of marriage is NOT to provide a forum to "publicly declare love for one another" or whatever other nonsense talking point you moonbats are using these days. Only men and women can have babies. Sure gays can adopt or have artificial insemination, but by the nature of those procedures, y'all can wait until you are emotionally and financially prepared to take on the responsibility. Heterosexual couples can actually procreate without outside help, and sometimes there's accidents. You and your partner can bump donuts all you want, and there will be no unintended consequences.
And yes, I am aware that old couples, infertile couples and couples that don't intend to have children are allowed to marry. This is due to efficiency. How much time and effort would it take for the state to inquire if a couple can or are willing to have children. It's easier to just assume that they can and will. On the other hand it takes almost no effort to look at a marriage license application and determine that someone named "Fred" will never be able to procreate with someone named "Bruce".
Moonbat 2: ARRRGH he blinded us with logic! Run away!
Moonbat 1: You are such a bigot. Gay people have just as much right to - uh, what are you doing?
LearnedFoot: I am unscrewing the handle from this plunger.
Moonbat 2: Why, bigot?
LearnedFoot: Because if you do not immediately leave me alone, I am going to beat you both unconscious with it.
Scenario 3 (Only to be used if your assailants are good looking "lipstick lesbians"):
Moonbat 1: You bigoted bigot! You unenlightened moron!
LearnedFoot: Could you two, like, y'know, make out. Girls kissing each other is soooo hot.
Moonbats 1 & 2: (together) Sure!!!
Ahem, sorry about that. I let my imagination get away from me there. OK finally,
[No dialogue. Instead, once cornered in the bathroom by the moonbats, LearnedFoot conducts an experiment to answer the seldom asked but compelling question: How many lesbians can you cram into a toilet?]
Monday, April 11, 2005
Allow me to make a suggestion:
The next time you see some moonbat douchebag 99-pound pencilneck running at you with a pie, instead of running away or just flinching and taking the pastry in the face, could you please just tackle the dumbass and beat the crap out of him?
Or if you pack heat, as I'm sure some of you do, shoot them.
Hope you find my advice helpful.
ME LOVE TO EAT MOONBAT! ME LOOKING AT MOONBAT RIGHT NOW. BUT THE OTHER GUYS SAY TO DEMENTEE "DON'T EAT MOONBAT YET"! ME CAN'T WAIT TO EAT TASTY, TENDER MOONBAT! ME LOOKING AT MOONBAT RIGHT NOW! IT SCARED OF DEMENTEE! IT POOP IN IT PANTS! BUT DEMENTEE DO NOT CARE! ME WILL JUST WASH IT OFF BEFORE ME EAT IT!
M IS FOR MOONBAT, THAT GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME!
M IS FOR MOONBAT, THAT GOOD ENOUGH FOR ME...
As you can see we are serious. If you would like to contribute to save the moonbat from it's fate, simply post your credit card number in the comments section of this post.
On the other hand, if you are uncomfortable with that arrangement, or you just want to see Dementee get a good meal, you can save a cute little bunny instead.
Personally I'd go with the bunny, but we could really use three mil.
The choice is yours.
As I think I have made clear, non-Catholics (or Catholics for that matter) who opine about the official doctrine of the Catholic church being "out of the mainstream" annoy the hell out of me. The pope is not the king, and the church is not a democracy, so what those moonbats have to say is irrelevant to just about everything.
But these people are also very arrogant. Let me illustrate.
I was at a dinner party Saturday night. The topic of the pope's passing briefly arose. One of the people at the table, a Lutheran, offered up the Official Left-Wing Douchebag Talking Point on the subject: "He was a great man. But hopefully this time they (the Cardinals) will elect someone much less conservative."
Regular readers of this blog will be chagrinned to learn that I successfully resisted the temptation to fly across the table and stab her in the eye with my fork.
Then there was this migrane-inducing letter to the Strib on Sunday:
Martin Marty's "The Soul of Consistency" spoke for many of "the other half of Christendom," non-Roman Catholic Christians (Op Ex, April 3). We, too, grieve the loss of a great Christian leader. All believers in Jesus owe to Pope John Paul II our heartfelt gratitude for his many good works and the example of a faith-filled death.
However, the late pope also leaves in history a record of his failure to grant to women their rightful place in the church and society. And by condemning the use of condoms and the teaching of modern sex education, he also failed to contribute to the struggle against the AIDS epidemic.
The Rev. John H. Sinclair, Roseville; minister, the Presbyterian
OK, here's the repetitive part. Though I have rephrased and clarified it to add value:
To say that a 2000 year-old institution should change its basic teachings, because you think you have a better idea of what constitutes morality and Ultimate Truth, is the epitome of arrogance.
And I'm pretty sure arrogance is a sin. If it's not, it should be.
And just to get in one more shot, let's take a look at this sentence in the letter again:
And by condemning the use of condoms and the teaching of modern sex education, he also failed to contribute to the struggle against the AIDS epidemic.
Um, I'm no epidemiologist, but I'm pretty sure the chuch's position against Promiscuous Butt-Love would be a pretty effective prescription for stopping the spread of AIDS. Condoms can break.
And in any case, a lot of the spread of AIDS in Africa has been due to the superstitious belief that raping young girls purges an infected person of the virus.
[Here LearnedFoot has a darkly tragi-comic mental picture of a Presbyterian missionary chasing after an African man, waving a Trojan in the air shouting "Wait! Don't forget to use a condom before raping that 14 year-old girl!"]
This forms a nice segue to our next example of arrogance mingling with pure stupidity. It appears one recent subject of Moron Mail (and a near identical post by Dementee - I would accuse Dementee of plagiarism, but he scres the crap out of me) did some vanity googling, and saw fit to comment on Dementee's version of my post about the half-mast-flag-for-the-pope-kerfuffle:
Never did expect everyone to agree with me. Remember, the average IQ is higher in the blue states than it is in the red states. Proud to say that I'll be attending the NARAL-ProChoice America fundraiser tomorrow.
For his homepage he links to a gay activist "boycott stillwater" website (anti gay-marriage ammendment proponent Senator Michelle Bachmann represents the Stillwater senate district). Footrios, the Haloscan god of Lucidity remedied that breach of the KAR Official Commenting Protocol ("Thou shalt not use the comments to hype your moonbat blog/site").
Before I fisk Terrell's comment, a word from our sponsor:
A sentence by sentence fisking:
Never did expect everyone to agree with me.
Not the point. Nobody should agree with you because you position has no basis in fact, law or common sense.
Now for the now cliched "liberals are smarter than conservatives" line of bullshit:
Remember, the average IQ is higher in the blue states than it is in the red states.
Read this book. Oh my! A conservative that actually reads. Terry's head must be exploding. Oddly enough, I live in a blue state (Minnesota), was born in a Blue State (Michigan), and grew up in a Blue State (Wisconsin), which means I am probably three times smarter than you are, dipshit.
With such well-reasoned divel like this comment and your letter to the Strib, it's easy to see why you think you are so brilliant.
Proud to say that I'll be attending the NARAL-ProChoice America fundraiser tomorrow.
In the dictionary, under the word "non-sequitur," it says "see butter".
But seriously, it's good to see that you have a life, Terry.
And to the rest of you people out there:
Be sure to spend as much money as you can in Stillwater.