Monday, April 30, 2007
LINE 1. Taxable wages and tips: $______
LINE 2: Other taxable interest or dividends: $_______
LINE 3. Personal deduction: $_______
LINE 4. Itemized deductions (from Worksheet A): $______
LINE 5. Do you have a cock (check one): Yes No Don't know
No, sadly, I am not making this up:
Want to reduce the overall level of income taxes and see more women taking home paychecks?
Lower income-tax rates for women while raising them for men, according to Harvard University economist Alberto Alesina, who calls the idea "discrimination, the good kind."
Ah yes! The "good kind" of discrimination! Who the hell is this twit?
An "economist", eh?
One moment please...
["]The female tax rate should be no greater than about 80 percent of that of males and possibly much less," Alesina and a co-author wrote in a recent paper that's grabbing attention among those concerned about the persistent gap between the sexes, both in workforce participation and average earnings.
Remember how we've been hearing over and over again from moonbats in the state legislature about how regressive property taxes are, and that we need raise income taxes to reduce the property tax burden? So now, do only the super rich have penises? Talk about a regressive tax scheme! The poor shlub making $10 per hour and sporting a 3-inch cocktail weiner has to pay the same higher percentage as the CEO sporting a foot-long trouser snake?
And I'm fairly certain there'd be an equal protection issue here - that is aside from all the other patent stupidity this dredges up. I'd even go so far to say that this taxation scheme wouldn't even survive the super-permissive "rational basis" standard of review. Though this is hardly the first time this week where a drooling moonbat didn't see the Constitution as an obstacle to the imposition of some Glorious Utopian Dream.
Fortunately this idea is so stupid that it'll likely never see the light of day. Hell, only half the electorate is female.
Well, there's also the eunuchatariat consisting of sensitive "guys" like our old pal Jeffie.
Anyway, watch for this Sunday's column from Lori Sturdevant calling for all "courageous" legislators to support the Penis Tax.
Rosie O'Donnell is correct. Jet fuel fires do NOT melt steel; even really big jet fuel fires can't melt steel. Jet fuel burns at only about 1500 Degrees Fahrenheit in the open air and structural steel does not melt or even get significantly weakened until more than a thousand degrees hotter with a melting point of near 3300 degrees F. That is why diesel engines and jet turbines can sustain internal combustion without melting and why steel workers use acetylene torches, not jet fuel fires, to cut steel.
But an unfortunate incident (but thankfully, not a tragic one unless you are a Bay Area commuter), pretty much lights up this particular crock:
San Francisco Bay area residents faced nightmarish commutes Monday after one of the region's most traveled sections of freeway melted and collapsed following a fiery crash.
An elevated section of highway that carries motorists from the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge to a number of freeways was destroyed early Sunday after heat from an overturned gasoline truck caused part of one overpass to crumple onto another.
The crash occurred around 3:45 a.m. on the MacArthur Maze, a network of ramps and interchanges at the edge of downtown Oakland and about a half-mile from the Bay Bridge toll plaza. Witnesses reported flames rising up to 200 feet into the air.
Heat exceeded 2,750 degrees and caused the steel beams holding up the interchange from eastbound I-80 to eastbound Interstate 580 above to buckle and bolts holding the structure together to melt, leading to the collapse, California Department of Transportation director Will Kempton said.
OK, so jet fuel burning in an enclosed space with all kinds of fuel - desks, drywall, paper etc. - to stoke it can't reach a temperature high enough to compromise steel...
...but a gasoline tanker truck burning in open space atop a concrete and steel bridge deck has sufficient heat (it should be noted that the driver was only slightly injured) to cause that to collapse.
Say, that driver did walk away from the conflagration with only a mere scratch. Funny. It's like he knew it was going to happen...
We're through the looking glass here people.
Friday, April 27, 2007
This unique, possibly life-saving device comes with a vicious breed of dog known as a "mini-pit" which is light-weight but long on mean (just look at the damn thing!). Carrier and mini-pit do not exceed a combined weight of 5 pounds, perfect for carrying on bus, light-rail, or other modes of transport likely to be rife with ner-do-wells.
When they see the "Port-a-Pit", they will keep on walkin' to the next victim!
Carrier doubles as life preserver. Dog available in any color you want, as long as it's black.
LEARNEDFOOT PROVIDES FULL DISCLOSURE: The most vicious thing that I ever witnessed the display-model "mini pit" do is poop on my lawn.
LEARNEDFOOT: You look troubled. What's wrong?
MORON: A homeowner stops an intruder by shooting and wounding him.
LF: Oh how terrible! I mean, I'm glad that this homeowner was able to defend him or herself from the intruder and is OK. But I fear that defending him or herself from the machinations of our justice system - which I am sure would exonerate this homeowner - might take an emotional toll.
MORON: The homeowner is not charged.
LF: Oh, thank goodness! Well, happy endings then...
MORON: A dog stops an intruder by biting and wounding him.
LF: Well, that's great. A good watchdog can also be an effective crime deterrent. Say, why do you keep speaking in the present tense, anyway?
MORON: The dog is declared "dangerous" and is killed.
LF: Er... The dog is declared "dangerous" for biting an intruder? Like a criminal intruder? Or was it someone like a meter reader? Because those situations are completely different -
MORON: What is wrong with this picture?
LF: Your simplistic premise for one thing. Who the hell are you and what rock did you crawl out from under anyway?
MORON: NANCY BONER, MINNEAPOLIS
LF: Ah. I see. Well, Ms. Boner - if that is your real name - I'll try to explain it to you. You see people and dogs are different. Dogs don't quite have the rather advanced cognitive skills that humans do. Theor situational awareness tends to be a bit less nuanced than your typical (non-letter-writing) human. Thus, they can be quite unpredictable - unless they have established a pattern of violence. Nor are they able to communicate in any meaningful way what there intention were for any given incident. This makes it hard for Rover the Irritated Chow Chow to tell us after he bites the mail man "Sorry dude. My bad. I mistook you for my owner's psychotic ex, and your mailbag for an uzi." Of course, since you are a psychologist, I'm probably just going over things that you already know. Right?
LF: [Rolls eyes]
LF: Anyhoo, let's get back to your question (i.e. "what is wrong with this picture"). The "picture" you see as "wrong" can only be righted in two ways in your view: 1) Put homeowners who defend themselves by shooting burglars to sleep; or 2) Allow dangerous dogs with a nasty nature and a prior history of mauling innocent people (I am going to disregard your use of the word "intruder" since it's, well, detached from reality) to continue to keep on doing so. Oh, sure we could just lock 'em up in a kennel and throw away the key, but unfortunately money is not available to do that since we're already spending quite a bit of it locking up people who were not shot by the homeowner whose home they intruded upon.
LF: Are you beginning to see why you're a moron yet?
LF: You see, we have to take these dogs out of circulation because, as I mentioned before, unlike the law-abiding homeowner who defended himself, we simply can't predict what Fido and Bitchie might do in the future...
LF: I'm just wasting my bandwidth here, aren't I?
LF: This play is over!
After Non-monkey is done ducking black helicopters perhaps he can adjust his tinfoil hat and give Sarah a call. She should be worth at least one or two fawning columns.
I’ll sum up Sarah’s story this way: The chick is f%$&ing nuts:
But beneath the coats of magnolia paint, she points out, the walls are lined with a special paper that contains a layer of tin-foil; and upstairs, the windows are hung with a fine, silvery gauze.
"I have to restrict the amount of time I spend on the computer or watching television, and make sure I don't have too many household appliances on at once, because that sets me off as well."
This may sound bizarre, but there is no doubt that Sarah's symptoms are real.
To date, they include hair loss, sickness, high blood-pressure, digestive and memory problems, severe headaches and dizziness.
They strike with such ferocity that, since diagnosing herself as "electrically sensitive" in May 2005, she has been marooned at home.
And she can venture into built-up areas only if she is swathed in a net-and-hat ensemble made from a special "shielding fabric" that makes her look like a bee-keeper.
Move over Al Gore, there a new moonbat Messiah in town and you can't hold a candle to her.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
You can listen to the show here. The phone # to call in is 646-652-4889.
The Letter o' the Day-ay-ay-ay-ay-ay-ay-ay-ay-ay-ay-ay-ay-ay
Letter of the day: Iraq can do without any U.S.-built walls
Regarding the "security barrier" we're building in Iraq: President Bush would do well to heed the words of one of his American idols, who, like himself, was a scandal-free outspoken advocate for peace. Ronald Reagan, a k a "the Great Prevaricator," [huh? -ed.] as I recall once challenged a fellow oligarch to "tear down that wall."
Hasn't the Bush administration built enough walls between us and the rest of the world?
WILLARD B. SHAPIRA, MINNEAPOLIS
Anyone who cannot draw a moral distinction between walls built for purposes of self-defense, and those built to imprison a population must have the intellect, wit and vast spare time to think up such stupidities to be a serial op-ed letter writer.
Oooo. He's a commie too!
I was delighted to read that Minneapolis is finally getting aggressive about crime on 7th Street. I have worked and lived downtown for 11 years and avoid 7th and Hennepin and 7th and Nicollet due to young black youth who harass, intimidate, deal drugs and fight at these two stops.
I was disgusted at comments this is some type of "agenda" to remove black people from downtown. I have had to call 911 many, many times at these two stops -- not once was it to break up a group of young Swedes fighting and dealing drugs!
It is long overdue for Minneapolis to rid those corners of bad behavior. Maybe now I will start spending more money downtown instead of in the suburbs.
PAUL WALKER, MINNEAPOLIS
The Strib is going to have to take out a third opinion page just to accommodate all the hate mail this guy's going to get.
And then, of course, Syl Jones will have to weigh in to rail against racist "Ice People" like Paul here.
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Yesterday, you should have received an e-mail from the co-chair of the 3rd Annual Millard Fillmore Memorial KAR-Nation Open Championship Charity Golf Outing Classic event committee. And while it's encouraging to see that at least half of you have mastered the skill of responding to e-mails, that leaves half of you whom, I can only surmise, have suffered a stroke within the last couple of months and have lost all control of your faculties. If that's the case, we here at KAR wish you a speedy recovery.
If you have not received the e-mail, please check your spam folder. I have found that, for some reason, spam filters tend to flag e-mails that use the word "milf" a lot. If it's not there, shoot me a line, and I'll forward you the very important message that went out yesterday. And if you still want to participate in the golf event or the Post-MilF, but haven't yet signed up, likewise let me know of that fact and I'll get you squared away. That address again is:
And that leaves the rest of you who have received the e-mail, but have not yet responded. To you, I say: what the hell is wrong with you? Bill and I need your input planning the event. So get your thumbs out of your butts and reply already. If you don't, you may find yourself at the business end of a profanity-laced tirade from Bobo.
But enough about me and my trip to the backwoods, or prairie, of Texas.
I’ve not cared about John Edwards and his hair, but the letter, written by Sandy Elkins of Plano, shows an absolute lack of understanding of irony that I’m compelled to comment.
The money quote is in this paragraph.
Mr. Richter says there's "one America where men pay $20 for a haircut, and another where they pay $400." I'll bet President Bush, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove don't get their hair styled at Supercuts or Wal-Mart.
Sandy, your comparison is empty-headed.
Personally, I don’t give a damn how much Edwards pays for a haircut. $400 to him is no different than $20 to most of us, so what’s the big deal?
The big deal is, John Pretty Boy Edwards is a raging hypocrite because he enjoys all the trappings of wealth, while railing against the same economic model that gave him the riches he wallows in.
This phony has made a political career from his "Two Americas" mantra. I've yet to hear, W, Cheney or Rove do the same.
Leftists are mentally incapable of calling out one of their own for hypocrisy. Bill Clinton can get head from an intern, but because he’s pro-abortion he gets a pass.
Al Gore uses more electricity and natural gas in a month than most do in a year, but it matters not because he is the profit of global warming.
Then there’s John Edwards. Oh, how he hates the divide between the haves, such as him, and the have-nots, but a $400 dollar haircut doesn’t bother the faithful because he is doing their bidding.
It’s like the televangelist who flies private jets and lives in a multi-million dollar home, all bought from the donations from their flock, but the flock doesn’t give a damn because he, the preacher, is praying for the salvation of their souls.
What a great gig, take others to task for living as you do and be hailed as a hero.
But judging the cartoons he prolifically posts will leave one scratching one's head more times that not.
While most three-panel cartoons follow an introduction/setup/conclusion format, Lacey's non sequiturs often leave the reader going, "huh?" (Forum threads on sites such as Touch of Evil and Something Awful have been dedicated to deciphering Faith Mouse cartoons.) A recent panel found Faith Mouse observing a flying saucer heading toward her. Panel two shows the ship opening to reveal "recovered" homosexual Donnie Davies singing "God Hates Fags!" The third panel features political pundit Andrew Sullivan applauding a bowing Davies with the phrases "Christian baiting!" and "xGay bashing!" over Sullivan's head. So, why would the gay Sullivan be applauding Davies' gay bashing? Lacey himself stated, "I'd rather not explain my cartoons (not sure I absolutely can)," in an unrelated January 2007 posting.
Of course! I forgot - to your average urban hipster, nonsensical = avant garde!
I can do that.
So, oh powers that be at City Pages, please disregard my previous comic strip. That was the old, milquetoast, bland, suburban Foot-toon. Say hello to the new, edgy, hip, "teh kewl", cutting edge and future award-winning ThunderJournal comic:
But on the upside, so has the hated Nihilist in Golf Pants.
CLOSED CIRCUIT TO SISYPHUS: Our experience has shown conclusively that haikus do not win awards.
So since Top 11 lists appear to be soooo 2006, we must look to what current criteria the hipsters at CP deem makes for cutting edge local blog excellence. For this year, two distinct categories of blogger seem to have caught the CP's eye:
1) Bloggers who pretend that they're dogs and babble semi-coherent bullshit in the tone of a condescending a-hole; and
2) Bloggers who draw cartoons.
So in the interest of getting a head start on winning next year's best blog award, I offer a fresh new KAR-Toon (though, as a faithful citizens of KARNation know, we too featured an original cartoon for a short period of time):
DEAR ABBY: I have been happily married for nearly three years. My husband is fine except for one problem: He has a very tiny male organ. It does not bother me, but he constantly apologizes to me about it. He's so self-conscious that he doesn't like for me to see him undressed.
I'm an old-fashioned girl. I saved myself for marriage. Before I met my husband I did some heavy petting with a couple of former boyfriends, but that was all. When he and I dated, I knew he was not as well-endowed as my former boyfriends, but I accepted it.
Now he has started saying he thinks I should have an affair with someone "properly endowed" so I won't feel cheated. He says he wants me to experience satisfaction in a way he knows he can't provide me.
Abby, I don't want this. I can't understand why he's asking me to do such a thing. He keeps harping on it. At first, I was shocked. Now I must admit, he has me wondering if I really am missing something. Should I do it to pacify him and satisfy my own curiosity? I can't bring myself to go against my upbringing and commit adultery.
Please advise me. I'm frustrated about this entire situation. -- NO BIG THING?
Sorry, I've been remiss in my duties updating the Brewers' and Twins' magic numbers. I've got the latest numbers up now. Well, for the Brewers anyway; the Twins seem to have forgotten how to hit, and the resulting swoon has knocked them out of first place. You can find them on the sidebar just below the KAR Kwote Widgit.
I've also added value to the baseball section of the sidebar by adding the Cubs Futility Watch. Yes, now not only can you gauge how close the Brew Crew and the Twinkies are to winning the pennant, but in practically the same glance you can ascertain how many games out of first place the The Most Annoying Team in Baseball is.
OK, that's not fair. It's really the team with the most annoying fans in baseball. That's why I did it. Just doing my small part to torment North Side yuppies and baseball poseurs everywhere. You are welcome.
Finally, you'll note a new 2007 line in my softball stat tracker below the Cubs Futility Watch. Opening day is tomorrow, and I look forward to victimizing Team Kevie twice this year. We don't play each other until the end of May, so watch for the smack to start flying sometime next week.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Crow made her comments on her blog last week, and Rosie took a moment on this morning's "The View" to express her incredulity at the supposedly enviro-friendly suggestion. "Have you seen my ass?!" bellowed Rosie...
This is one of those...moments that... forces one to...rethink...
Everyone's seen Rosie's ass -
Everyone's seen Rosie's ass. *snork* It is, after all, a prominent feature of the Los Angeles skyline.
Please take over for me, Bobo.
Number 5 is a slight dogleg left playing 320 yards from the championship tees and a mere 300 from the MilF box. The hole culminates in a large, flat, ordinary green. Unless you are some sort of pie-decorating nancy boy, you should go for the green here, aiming your drive over the tree closest to the fairway on the left side. And that's all there really is to say about #5, the easiest par 4 on the course.
FOOT'S SECRET TIP: If you failed to urinate on #3, the wooded area flanking the tee box here is another wonderfully private place to take a whiz.
a) Analyze the explicit and implicit clues in the ubiquitously exposed multi-media press kit the whacko himself issued? or:
b) Blame the massacre on society, people like John Derbyshire, and the assailant's unfortunate possession of a penis?
If you chose (a), congratulations! You have more than one synapse firing correctly.
Guess who picked (b).
Monday, April 23, 2007
And this is a big problem, because these unperforated mega-rolls can be found in many heavily-used public rest rooms. So in order to prevent using more than one's allotted one-square share, the environmentally-conscious pooper will be forced to bring a ruler and protractor to the john along with the typical accouterments (newspaper, Playstation 2, porno mag, etc.). And putting that aside, what is the observant carbon-neutral excreter to do if he or she fails to follow the "measure twice, cut once" rule, resulting in the occasional wasteful rectangle? Throw it away and start over? Or perhaps should an errant toilet paper cutter use the inaccurately rent tissue, thereby using more than the fair share that could have been used by the poor guy who washed down that giant burrito with 6 or 7 Grain Belt Primos the night before - overconsumption being the lesser evil to waste?
About the only upside I can see is that it could open a whole new market for Pooping Accessory Totes. Some ingenious entrepreneur could design, fabricate and sell a compact shoulder-slung tote bag to carry all the pooping necessities: a sleeve for the newspaper, slots to hold a pencil, ruler and protractor, and a handy chart on which one can record one's toilet paper consumption activity so as to facilitate future Toilet Paper Offset purchases should they become necessary.
And, no, she is not really
Happy to see you.
If toilet paper
Is outlawed, only outlaws
Will have clean sphincters.
Hey Sturdevant: is
There anything you don't want
To throw our cash at?
Lori's dream is an
Dollar state budget.
Boris Yeltsin dies.
Liver looked heathy compared
Chicago to get
Its first big boner since the
Sox won the Series.
Harry Reid to Grunts:
"You are losers." Grunt to Reid:
"You are a douchebag."
Unlike Bill, I loathe
Sheryl Crow's "music." But then,
I don't adorn pies.
I now think I know why Lance Armstrong divorced Sheryl Crow.
WARNING DANGER DANGER: Stop reading now if you are of tender sensibilities!!!!!
Going down on her is way too disgusting:
I have spent the better part of this tour trying to come up with easy ways for us all to become a part of the solution to global warming. Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating. One of my favorites is in the area of forest conservation which we heavily rely on for oxygen. I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting. Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where 2 to 3 could be required.
From my cold, dead hands Sheryl.
You can take my toilet paper when you pry it from my cold, dead, non-poop-stained hands.
Friday, April 20, 2007
I just got of an excruciating CLE, so this will have to be short.
I haven't read the recent controversial Supreme Court decision on partial birth abortion (or as those who wish to gloss over the brutality of the procedure like to call it "D & X"), which I believe puts me on equal footing with the pinheads on the Strib editorial board. Instead of going down the whole abortion debate road and risk getting 50 comments from some dumbass "feminist" quoting the DSM-IV, I'll just stick to the Strib's shifting standards of jurisprudence. To the extent they can be called standards.
Editorial: An insult to women, and the Constitution
The new Supreme Court flouts precedent -- and plain logic.
Tradition just isn't what it used to be -- at least not in the U.S. Supreme Court. In the old days -- that golden time when a Republican named Sandra Day O'Connor sat on the court -- justices regarded the decisions of years past as the foundation for rulings to come. Principle nearly always trumped politics, and long-settled law stirred reverence rather than scorn.
As a real quick aside to my main purpose here, when the Strib finally gets around to its point, be sure to note which side it sees as "principled" and which is "political". And then laugh hysterically at their hubris and unintentional irony.
No longer is it so.
Really keep that sentence in the front of your head, so as to fully feel the bloody assault that I am about to visit on the Strib's version of "plain logic".
On Wednesday, the high court shrugged off three decades of precedent to conjure a conclusion that defies logic and law.
Aha! We're talking about the doctrine of stare decisis here. That is, prior decisions bind present cases.
So, let's revisit that sentence I asked you to remember and paraphrase it as it is now informed by that last sentence, so as to allow you to actually see in three dimensions the blood and sinew that will emanate from this editorial once I deliver a single death blow of fact to its pitiful little head:
Unlike its glorious predecessors, the Roberts Court has flouted "tradition" for "politics" by abandoning stare decisis.
The question at hand? Abortion, of course.
When President Bush replaced the retiring O'Connor and, soon after, the court's late chief William Rehnquist, his keenest wish was to appoint justices hostile to the landmark 1973 ruling on abortion rights. On Wednesday, the new appointees delivered as desired -- upholding a federal ban on a particular surgical technique occasionally used in second-trimester abortions.
To be fair to the Court, it is a barbaric technique that ought to be banned even if men could bear
The ruling's disdain for precedent couldn't be clearer.
Oh, you know what's coming, don't you? (Cue Jaws music)
A number of lower courts have reviewed the 2003 law barring use of intact dilation and extraction -- a method its critics provocatively call "partial-birth abortion" -- to terminate a pregnancy.
(Jaws music tempo increases, growing louder)
All declared the law unconstitutional -- in keeping with the high court's own rulings.
Da dunt da dunt da dunt daduntdaduntDADUNTDADUNT....
That's the No. 1 oddity of the case decided Wednesday: In truth, it has already been answered. Just seven years ago, the Supreme Court voted to strike down a Nebraska abortion ban virtually identical to the 2003 law passed by Congress.
(Making a comical-looking shark mouth with my arms)
I wonder what the Strib thought about Lawrence v. Texas? Declaring that state anti-sodomy laws were unconstitutional, LvT directly reversed the precedent set in Bowers v Hardwick a mere decade and a half earlier.
Does anyone think that anyone sitting around that conference table in the Strib Editorial Lab shot out of his or her chair stabbing a stubby index finger in the air decrying the courts infidelity to stare decisis?
I seriously seriously doubt it.
And of course, had Jimmy Jam Boyd, Steve "Hertz" Berg and the rest of the crew been around when Brown v. Board of Education was decided, I'm sure we would have seen a sternly worded editorial decrying the Court's stubborn refusal to follow Plessy. Maybe they would have even referred to Thurgood Marshall as a n!gg3r.
Right? Plessy was, after all, precedent.
UPDATE: I've always felt uncomfortable supporting an argument with assumptions - even ones as safe as the one I used here (i.e. the Strib editorialists would have hailed - not criticized - the avoidance of stare decisis in certain cases, when it suits their biases). Initially, I was unable to find the fawning editorial that I'm sure they wrote when Lawrence hit the papers. Since the Strib scrubs their archives frequently, I used the Wayback Machine search engine to attempt to find it. Unfortunately, it found no pages cached during the relevant time period.
Well, I had a little time to do some extra googling. I found the editorial the Strib wrote about the case reproduced on another site, and - well - just read:
In a long overdue action, the high court rendered sodomy laws moot. The justices in a 6-3 decision rightly reversed the court’s 1986 ruling that allowed states to punish homosexuals for so-called deviant sex. On Thursday they struck down a Texas ban on gay sex, ruling that the law was an unconstitutional violation of privacy.
So, back in 2003, stare decisis wasn't quite as relevant as it apparently is today. Of course, the same can be said about the Strib.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
[T]he fact that for about the 10th time now you've pointed to a COLUMN that a MinMon writer had done and treated it as if it were a reported piece explains everything I've never been able to understand about conservatives but finally get now. You people really don't understand the difference between fact and opinion.
Ahhhh. Now I get it. So if you assert a demonstrable falsehood in a "column," you are not being dishonest, but are merely making an opinion. Even if the assertion is factual in nature.
To close out the comment, Robin added:
You, Mr. Foot, are a hunky sex god.
Or at least I think she meant to add that, even if it didn't appear in her comment. It doesn't matter. This post is a column, and therefore I am not bound by reality. In fact, I don't know why I am even including this disclaimer. You should merely have to take my word as objective reality, since I am of the opinion that I am indeed a sex god.
With a freakishly large penis.
I am rather relieved to be unbound by the constraints of Truth and Fact. I have spiked a great many
THIS GENERATION IS A BUNCH OF PANSY-ASSED WUSSGOBLINS
The other day, I was playing a little one-on-one roundball with my good friend Dwayne Wade. I punctuated my third straight (shutout) victory with a thunderous two-handed dunk over his considerable 9-foot 17-inch frame. A tear rolled down his cheek while he whined "Why'd you have to humiliate me like that?"
What a pansy! Just like all of you. You're all a bunch of pansy-assed pansies. Why can't y'all be more like me?
So, fellow KARnies, now that we are adequately educated about what the difference between an opinion ("you are a pansy") and a fact ("I totally schooled D-Wade") I expect all of your outputs to increase as a result of this new found freedom. Just be sure to tag your column with the appropriate "a column" label. Then you can just write whatever the hell you want and call it a fact.
Unless someone objects, in which case that very same assertion should be characterized as an opinion. Is that clear? Good. Get writing.
Such as, cars:
And flaming pianos:
Catapults: Is there anything they can't do?
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Regarding the tragic events at Virginia Tech: When are we as a nation going to stop sacrificing our children for the right to bear arms?
DONNA BONER, FLEEN PRAIRIE
Regarding this tragically moronic letter to the editor: when am I going to stop sacrificing my sanity for some ignorant tool's right to free speech?
To recap, the lie was characterizing the attendees of Saturday's tax rally at the capitol as:
...demanding an end to taxation.
and then again to ensure us he wasn't engaging in hyperbole:
The people calling for an end to all taxes
But of course everyone with a functioning brain knows that this wasn't the case. However, if you are at all familiar with this particular reporter, you know that he considers himself to be one of the chosen few (along with a select bunch of well-trafficked lefty-bloggers) to be blessed with a functioning brain. It's my guess that he was counting on that misconception to evade notice of his big fat lie.
Nor has he made any effort to correct himself, even though several commenters to his bullshit-laden droolfest called him on it. On fact, he's stayed true to his custom when confronted with his own B.S, by fleeing the scene and pretending he doesn't see them.
Perhaps he thinks he's now above such banalities. After all, he's a real grownup "reporter" now, because his "news" organization has its very own Code of Ethics to legitimize it. Among the MinnMoni code of ethics are the following:
New Journalist Fellows should be honest, tireless, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information for the public.
Two strikes on the "honest" and "fair" points. And a called third strike on the "courageous" issue, for declining to even bother to defend his garbage in the comments to that post.
Ensure the accuracy of all information, regardless of where it comes from. Review facts and stories. Never knowingly publish false information.
Give all the public the chance to respond to news stories, particularly those who might be accused of wrongdoing. Keep an open dialogue with the public.
Strike five for ignoring the comments.
Never misrepresent events in an attempt to oversimplify or take events out of context.
Strikes 6 through 25.
Always be fair, but always favor truth over balance
This is redundant with the first quoted ethic, so I'll only call one strike where I could call two.
Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
Strike 27. And thus, the Minnesota Monitor Code of Ethics throws a complete game no-hitter against its own designated (s)hitter.
Oh wait, that was just a foul ball. I need to take liberties with my metaphor to accommodate strike 28:
Keep the same high standards to which they hold others.
The phrase "Ha! Pwn3d!" comes to mind.
The Minnesota Monitor Code of Ethics: suitable material for butt wiping, blowing your nose or training the dog!
Monday, April 16, 2007
The power to tax involves the power to destroy.
In 2007, writing for George Soros, general dumbass Jeff Fecke blathered:
You see, while the surly curmudgeons whine and cry about having to pay their fair share for what they get, a simple fact remains: For all its faults, the government provides a number of good and vital services.
But really, this wouldn't be Jeffie's Weekly Kolumn (tm), without a nice big distortion o' the truth on which to premise his preconceived thesis. To wit:
The usual group of surly curmudgeons gathered on the Capitol steps Saturday demanding an end to taxation.
Unless you want your government to resemble Somalia's, you're going to have to spend money on something. And if you're going to have your government spending money, it's going to need to tax people.
The people calling for an end to all taxes Saturday drove to the Capitol on public roads in cars whose safety was verified by the federal government.
Of course, the truth of the matter, realized by everyone who isn't a self-loathing kool aid sucking moron is that nobody is calling for an end to all taxes. Oh, sure, I bet there were a few kookballs among the 6,000 protesters (according to the police - 14 according to the likes of Fecke) who give about as much thought to the issue as Feckster does here. But the vast majority of us realize that taxes do need to be paid for certain things (like, Jeff, roads, public safety, etc.). We're one in the same who do not presumptuously tag our posts with the label "Economics" when we're really advocating for the government to extract even more revenue from someone else to make ourselves feel magnanimous.
This is how they try to frame the debate. They use language that tends to leave the impression that we're not taxed at all (I'd be happy to
But Jeffie needed a "column" to earn his fellowship jing. Writing that a bunch of people who are already taxed quite a lot take umbrage with the myriad of anal rape-o-licious tax increase proposals amounting to over a billion dollars circulating our legislature, while true, would not serve his purposes or comport with his somewhat distorted view of reality.
And thus is born a new word into the KAR lexicon:
to fecke v. To make shit up in order to advance one's own agenda.
ex.: Andy claims to have birdied the 17th hole, but I bet he fecked that score.
Friday, April 13, 2007
Hallelujah! Finally, after 3 holes that require you to play target golf, the fourth allows you to take off the safety and let the big dog hunt. Number four is a very reachable par-5 playing 473 from the tips and a generous 463 from the MilF tees. The tee shot is to a wide open fairway flanked by nothing of any danger save for the out-of-bounds running down the left side. A flagstick in the middle of the fairway helpfully provides a target. Aim at it. While anywhere in the fairway (or even the first cut of rough) is an acceptable play, Position A is right down the middle or slightly to the right. Avoid the left side if at all possible.
After your tee shot, the fairway bends ever so slightly to the left and then descends gently to a lightning fast green nestled in a grove of mature oaks. If you are a big hitter and wish to go for the green in two, consider using one club shorter for your approach. This green does not hold shots well and you'd be better served bouncing your shot short of the green and letting it roll up rather than trying to throw a dart at the pin. If you're budgeting three shots to the green, you can easily get away with hitting successive irons on your second shot. In fact it's advisable, since the fairway tightens up the closer you get to the green, so accuracy becomes much more important here than it was off the tee. Given this hole's short distance and the downward slope to the green, you'll still be left with a nine iron or less for your approach. And like the third, if you leave yourself a putt from above the hole, you'll pay for it.
FOOT'S SECRET TIP: If you're in the group immediately in front of or behind Your Humble Tipster, be sure to take a moment to stop and watch him tee off #4. Just sit back and marvel at the awesome canon-like power you seldom witness outside a PGA event.
And then help him find his ball in the deep rough on the left side, about 300 yards down. Your Humble Tipster would appreciate that.
Earlier this week, we editorialized about the latest global-warming impact report from the International Panel on Climate Change. The report reflects the consensus view of the world's most eminent climate scientists....
...A consensus among those who are predisposed to thinking global warming is caused solely by CO2 emissions. Those research grant checks don't write themselves, you know.
After subjecting global data from the past 50 years to rigorous analysis, they warned that the first effects of climate change already are being felt, that things inevitably will get worse in the short term and that catastrophic long-term damage can only be avoided if humans act now to minimize their impacts on climate.
These are the same effects that have been felt since the retreat of the Wisconsinian glaciation. In retrospect, that icy demurrer has been quite positive overall for the human race.
Some considerable part of the response to that editorial was, frankly, strange. Cleaned up considerably and summarized, it boils down to this: It's snowing in April and you claim the climate is warming? Scientists can't even reliably tell us what the weather will be day after tomorrow. What kind of fools do you think we are? This is just more drivel from liberals who want to control our lives.
They're right. That is faulty logic. And it's of the same specimen of faulty logic in which the shrinking Antarctic ice shelf (no - the one on the other side of Antarctica, not the one that's growing) proves that the average global temperature increase is caused solely by carbon emissions.
Think about it.
Global warming deals with longer-term trends on a global scale, and the data do not lie: The world is getting warmer at an alarming rate, and scientists have great confidence that the biggest contributor to the warming comes from greenhouse gases released through human activities -- from driving a car to burning coal for electrical generation.
Yes, let's look on a global scale:
Now some questions for Jim Boyd or Steve "Hertz" Berg or whichever know-it-all penned this fetid pile of crap:
1) Notice how the CO@ level tracks in almost direct proportion to the average global temperature? If carbon gasses cause global warming, where prey-tell did all that atmospheric CO2 come from to precipitate the periodic rapid increases of temperature illustrated when there was no human activity?
2) Conversely, where did all that atmospheric CO2 go which (presumably) "allowed" the global temperature to decrease, plunging the earth into each successive ice age?
3) See how the CO@ level on the far far left side (present day) of the chart has spiked upward? This is undoubtedly due to human activity. But did you notice how the red temperature plot hasn't shot up along with it, like in all those previous historical cycles?
No, you can't answer those questions. Because you never posed them. And you never posed them because instead of actually thinking or finding out answers on your own, you merely saw apostleship of Al Gore as the quickest way to mount your high horses.
But as with everybody on your side of this "debate", you just gloss right on over the mechanics of causation and spend the bulk of your time yet again listing the parade of computer model generated horribles (when you're not scolding the "deniers," that is):
Indeed, global warming's impact on established weather patterns increases the severity of those variations. But year in and year out, Minnesota will continue to get warmer along with the rest of the world. The human suffering that results will be enormous, especially for the world's poorest people.
...And then politely request all citizens of good conscience jump into their carbon-spewing vehicles, buses and trains, tote signs drawn on former CO2-reaping trees, and make spectacles of themselves to show that you all really really care.
Piss off and die, troglodytes.
"I gots to steal, and come to blows,
the mans got all the dirty clothes,
he's always steppin' on our toes,
makin' time with nappy-headed ho's"
Maybe? Ya think?
Here are just a couple:
"This is all very tragic," Deirdre Imus said. "There is a lot of healing to do here."
"He feels awful, after meeting with these girls and having that opportunity to talk with them. He asked them, 'I want to know the pain I caused, and I want to know how to fix this and change this,"' his wife said as she co-hosted the fundraiser.
She said the players "gave us the opportunity to listen to what they had to say and why they're hurting and how awful this is."
CBS Chairman and CEO Les Moonves: [T]here has been much discussion of the effect language like this has on our young people, particularly young women of color trying to make their way in this society.
"Not only did he steal our dreams, he hurt our character of Rutgers University, our state, and all who have been associated," [Rutgers coach] Stringer said on the show.
I’ll gladly admit that words can be very powerful, but this is ridiculous.
If the words “nappy-headed hos” caused even half the mental anguish the above statements seem to indicate, these young women should be looking not at Don Imus, but at their own parents for raising them to be fragile, weak, and hyper-sensitive.
Yes, what Imus said is reprehensible and racist and sexist and any other “ist” word you want to use. But for the love of God, anyone who lets the words “nappy-headed hos” steal their dreams, as the coach said, has much bigger problems to deal with and should thank Imus for helping to point that out.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
What I do care about, however, is that another US corporation has bent over, grabbed its ankles and taken it up the backside from two of the country's most racist and hypocritical snake oil salesmen.
Anyone who gives in to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton is a spineless weasel who deserves what he/she gets. What the ball-less and weak-titted don't understand is that nothing they can do will be enough to make the two Dons of the Black Mafia go away.
Just like the real mob, they will hound you until you cough up big bucks. And when you do, they'll only come back for more because the first payment is just a few drops of blood in the water for the sharks to swarm around.
Shakedown artists are what Jackson and Sharpton are: Smarmy, slimy, nappy-headed shakedown artists.
You'll beg forgiveness and none I'll give
A web of fear shall be your coat
To clothe you in the night
A lucky escape for you young man
But I'll see you damned in endless night --Iron Maiden
Yesterday, I wrote of my disinterest in the Don Imus thing unless the situation reached a higher quality of stupidity.
The the story of the Imus affair is as rote as they come. A Usual Suspect let's fly from his piehole a deeply offensive brain-dead utterance (OBDU). Then, the predictable list of publicity pimps predictably crawl out of their holes to make the predictable rounds on TV, spouting the same old tired predictable outrage. Then you've got everybody with a forum to do so falling all over themselves to condemn said OBDU for fear that if they don't their bona fides as an Enlightened Tolerant Person will somehow be undermined. All the while the OBDU that was so very very beyond the pale is repeated verbatim and ad nauseum. The company who owns the medium over which the OBDU was uttered (rightly) suspends or cancels the show, and sponsors (rightly) pull out. We've seen it before and we'll no doubt see it again.
But the reaction given by the real party in interest here - the Rutgers women's basketball team - illustrates an overall debasing of our culture that has nothing to do with any shock jock making a stupid offhand remark. The initial remarks by the coach are bad enough:
"Less than 24 hours after they accomplished so much, they came back to this. We have all been physically, mentally and emotionally spent — so hurt by the remarks uttered by Mr. Imus," coach C. Vivian Stringer said.
I don't know whether she's overstating, exaggerating or telling the truth here. But here's a situation in which guy of whom I am almost certain none of these ladies were aware before Monday utters 3 insulting words, and they are all "physically, mentally and emotionally spent." Being called a name by an irrelevant radio schmuck is somehow more taxing than getting to the national championship game.
I'm sorry. Have these kids ever heard the old saw "sticks and stones"? Or perhaps they were taught the alternate updated for the 21st century version: "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but you'll have a lawsuit pending."
It's easier being a victim. It's easy to stand at a podium and continually blast some guy for something that every sentient being in control of his or her faculties can see as objectively insulting.
But, no. That's not even the thing that elevates this media circus to a sublime stupidity. That people would embrace their victimhood to extract another pound of flesh from someone who has wronged them should surprise no one in this day and age.
No, this quote from one of the players, illustrates a sad reality. One in which we have gone beyond personal virtue, into some twisted politically correct realm where so-called "tolerance" and self-esteem matters more than being a Big Person:
I could say that we honestly don't know what to expect from Don Imus and what we will plan on asking him is his reasons and how you could just say things that you have not put any thought to? Right now I can't really say if we have come to a conclusion of whether we will accept the apology.
Here's a lesson that she will not learn at Rutgers, and indeed has apparently not been taught by her parents: People are imperfect. People make mistakes. Even big ones.
But people can also redeem themselves; learn a lesson and move on. Forgiveness is a virtue - a true virtue, in contradistinction to the vaunted lefty tolerance - that marks the generosity and righteousness of the wronged party. It takes absolutely no effort or intellect to possess a capacity to be offended. The fact that one proclaims him or herself to be offended and points a finger at the party to be ostracized does nothing to make the world better.
Forgiveness offers the wrongdoer a chance to learn from his mistake, and thus become a better person. That in turn improves our society in some small measure. Withholding it only gives the person an excuse to become bitter about the consequences he has brought upon himself.
But given that we live in such a self-centered world it would be wise to point out to everyone - not just the Rutgers basketball team - that we, qua humans, will also screw up royally. Lots. And there will likely be a time where you will not be able to move on from your transgression without the forgiveness of those whom you wronged. How would you like to hear "I haven't decided if i will forgive you yet"? Sounds pretty fricking arrogant when you are on the other end of the stick, doesn't it?
That's what in done in a civil and just society. When someone sincerely apologizes and promises to change, you forgive that person and put the matter to rest. How is justice served - in the true meaning of that term - when you refuse to do so, and self-righteously with back of hand pressed to forehead allow the situation to continue to fester and blather on and on about the "injustice" you have been forced to endure?
By being called a name. (For a great illustration of what injustice really looks like, see this.)
Imus has apologized profusely and without condition for his remarks. He continues to suffer the appropriate consequences of his actions. Everybody has gotten their pound of flesh, and there's little left of him. So here's my advice such as it is for the Rutgers girls and for all the other midget who were not wronged, but saw this as an opportunity to demonstrate their holier-than-thou moral superiority:
Do the right thing. Don't be an asshole like Imus was.
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Oh hello there. I must've dozed off. Boooooring news cycle.
What's that? Don Imus said something offensive about Anna Nicole Smith's baby?
Wake me when you find a higher quality of stupidity. Until then, enoy this extra special episode of Chad Vader. No, it's not the epic conclusion of the showdown between Chad and Clint. But it does feature a very familiar face...
Back to sleep...
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The scorecard lists #3 as 393 yards, 370 from the MilF tees, but it plays much longer. That is because its fairway features a 90-degree dogleg with a large stand of mature oak trees delineating the left-side out-of-bounds. It is possible to "cut the corner" off the tee. The task, however is difficult since you have to get the ball up in a hurry and still have enough ass behind your drive to not only carry the woods, but to also clear the wide swath of rough peppered with maple saplings on the other side. If you've got enough muscle to hit a 5 or 7-wood that high and that far, more power to you. Those of us who know better cede the extra 30 yards we'd get from that high-risk, dubious-reward play and hit an nice 4 iron to the corner, hugging the left side as closely as possible.
From there you'll have anywhere from 170 to 200 (depending on how well you hug the left side or hit a bitchin' draw) left to yet another two-tiered green. The fairway slopes downward toward the hole for the second shot, culminating in a green that slopes steeply upward. Because of this, you may even be able to use a club one shorter than you normally would from the same distance. Beware, however: you do not want to put your approach above the hole on this one. If the pin's in front and you're putting from the back (top tier) of the green, take along your chipping wedge. You'll likely need it after your first putt.
FOOT'S SECRET TIP: The deep woods on the left side of the fairway running from the tee box to the corner of the dogleg is a nice, private and secluded place to urinate. If you feel like you have to go, by all means, go here.
MOONCHILD: Poopy poopy poopy poopy butt!
LF: Ha ha! That never gets old. No seriously - guess what I just heard.
MC: I tooted! Tooooooted!
LF: I mean other than that...
MC: I want a sucker!
LF: In a minute. I have some news that you might be interested in. It concerns your future social life.
MC: Poopy tootie butt!
LF: OK, I'll just tell you: this guy I know - he's having twin girls!
MC: Girls are poopy.
LF: Yeah, well, 20 years from know, I guarantee you won't think that. And, more importantly, in 20 years they'll still be twins! Twin girls!
LF: Now you're gettin' it. *sniff* That's my boy!
Monday, April 09, 2007
Do we want to live in a world where the State defines sin? Do we want to live in a country where only redemption can be found in state-compelled asceticism or by purchasing state mandated indulgences? How about a parallel currency system? And how would you like being forced to subscribe to an official State mythos; a mythos that is perpetrated by lionizing hucksters and PR flaks and is enforced by marginalizing the millions who dare articulate a well-reasoned opposing view.
Not for me! No sireebob!
And I'm sure everybody reading this feels the same. But that's not why I'm Blogging Against Theocracy today. I'm Blogging Against Theocracy because many of those same people do not think it can happen here. But it can. And a recent decision by the Supreme Court portends that it can.
Perhaps you missed that decision last week in which 5 Justices who know little about atmospheric science (including Anthony Kennedy who also knows little about "law") declared that breathing is an act of pollution as a matter of law. Justice Stevens wrote in the court's opinion that the EPA's decision that carbon dioxide is not a regulatable pollutant was "arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law," adding that Man Made Global Warming was an "important issue". And thus, the first cracks have begun to appear in the wall between Apocalyptic Junk Science and State. Now the Pharisees of this nihilistic religion are armed with the imprimatur of validity that can only be bestowed by the Supreme Court of the United States.
This is yet the latest in a systematic attack against capitalism by a bizarre bunch of would be World Savers. They demand adherence to their end times orthodoxy. The true believers follow with an almost glassy-eyed affect, proselytizing doom in a single voice every time the temperature rises above (or goes below) the daily average. They ignore the evidence that disproves their faith with a quick ad hominem and a reference to "consensus". Those who do not submit are defamed - or worse.
I Blog Against Theocracy because I am not afraid to proclaim to all who hear it "I do not believe in Al Gore!" I Blog Against Theocracy because I refuse to accept prophecies of drowning polar bears simply because Al Gore featured an animated dramatization of one in some stupid movie. I Blog Against Theocracy because they label me "sinner" for refusing to drive a speck car and running the air conditioning on 90 degree days while demurring to purchase salvation through "offsets" and "carbon credits". I Blog Against Theocracy because I am free and I have the innate ability to think critically!
I Blog Against Theocracy because Al Gore and his robotic acolytes have caused more misery to those with common sense than all the wars in history combined.
For KAR's previous foray into delusional "Blogswarming to make a Difference" pap, see here.
Well, I'll just quote the article:
Adult movie superstar Jenn@ Jam3s0n has had plastic surgery on her vagina. The 32-year-old pRon actress decided to have some work done on her most famous asset but is reportedly not happy with the results.
Her displeasure means she has been forced to cancel a number of meetings with film bosses who want to adapt her autobiography 'How to Make Love Like a Pron Star', so she can have re-corrective surgery.
No. Won't go there. I'll just let the story's "source" supply the punchline:
A source told the New York Daily News newspaper: "She underwent a vaginoplasty conducted by a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon, and she is very unhappy.
"She has decided to hole up [*giggle* *snort* -ed.] and not speak to anybody. The producers are about to pull the plug [*PFFTTTT!!!* Coke shooting out nostrils -ed.] on the movie."
I have nothing to say...
Saturday, April 07, 2007
Could someone please fisk this dumbfuck for me? I'm busy.
Or I suppose I could do it on Monday. But that promises to be busy. Jeffie keeps pooping out the disingenuous stupidities and they're starting to pile up. Perhaps it's time start thinking about lifting the embargo...
[Wavy lines blur the picture indicating Foot's reminding himself why it's a bad idea to engage Jeffie the Wingnut Slayer]
FOOT: The sky is blue.
JEFFIE: No it's not it's plaid. And you are a wingnut for thinking otherwise.
FOOT: No, it's blue. Just look at it.
JEFFIE: I don't have to look at it. I have a friend who knows a lot about with sky color, and she tells me that it's plaid. See:
[T]the sky is plaid[.]
FOOT: Oh fer - Look at the quote again:
You calling me an idiot because I say the sky is plaid does NOT deny my right to say the sky is plaid.
It has nothing to do with the color of the sky, and even if it did, she'd still be wrong. Here is the science that proves - to the eternally dimwitted sheep-like doctrinaire pseudointellectual dickless Womyn's Studies student, anyway - that the sky is blue.
FOOT: He ran away. Again.
[Wavy lines- back to temporal world]
Or maybe not...
Friday, April 06, 2007
Now, from what I could glean by reading the letter in its entirety, there appears to be a bit of controversy surrounding one of the contestants on this over-hyped show.
Apparently some believe Sanjaya Malakar should be eliminated from the contest because he’s not good enough, but viewers, who I guess have some say in the matter, are keeping him on with their votes.
I think he should be bounced because he looks like Leif Garrett.
I’m still not sure if it was a good idea or very bad, for there, in the last paragraph, is this question:
What happened to our sense of democracy and acceptance of the rights of others?
Exactly what in the hell does the fact that some think this guy sucks have to do with democracy or his rights?
No rights are being VIOLATED; Democracy is not in danger here.
Why do you want to take their right to think he sucks away from them? Is it because you are a fascist, Arlene?
You and Pelosi might be able to get a group discount on a Constitution 101 class.
God, but you are a stupid, stupid woman.
Read the US Constitution and you’ll know why you are so stupid!
Who let in the idiots?
Shut the dooor before more come in.
No bathroom fixture is safe. No scrap of pepperoni or Polish sausage shall be spared. The streets will run cold with chocolate milk. There will be no slaking Moonchild's unquenchable appetite for destruction and meat.
Fair thee warned be ye, says I.
DISCLAIMER: For you tightly-wound Milwaukeeans who are right now trying to regain control of your trembling hand so you can dial Homeland Security to report a terroristic threat, you should probably know that Moonchild - the Bringer of Destruction - is a two year old:
And while he can and will lay waste to your home's interior in moments, he hasn't yet developed the skills necessary to bring down the Water Street Tower.
It’s bad enough that she’s shoving through legislation that limits the President’s ability to control troop movements, hardly within the purview of Congress:
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;
Now she’s flying around the Middle East creating foreign policy as she goes. Even the Washington Post and USA Today have taken her to task for stepping way, way over the line.
But here’s some of the really scary stuff:
From the Post:
"We [Pelosi & Assad] expressed our interest in using our good offices in promoting peace between Israel and Syria," she said.
"We came in friendship, hope, and determined that the road to Damascus is a road to peace," Ms. Pelosi grandly declared.
From USA Today:
Also along was House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, D-Calif., who said the meeting was "only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria, and we hope to build on this visit."
No matter that she claimed to have stuck closely to administration positions in her conversations with Assad, smiling photos of Pelosi and the Syrian president convey the unspoken message that while the U.S. president is unwilling to talk with Syria, another wing of the government is. Assad made good use of the moment.
"I don't care what the administration says on this," said Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va. "I want us to be successful in Iraq. I want us to clamp down on Hezbollah."
So, I ask, who’s shredding the Constitution now?
Blatantly, wantonly undermining US foreign policy because she, they, disagree is a dangerous precedent and Pelosi should be called to the carpet by the Administration the moment she steps her size 7 Prada’s on US soil.
And just so I make myself crystal clear, I don’t give a Goddamn who’s in the Oval Office or what party they belong to: It is the job of the President to set foreign policy and the job of the State Department to carry it out.
It is not the job of any member of Congress, and it sure as hell isn’t the job of the Speaker of the House, to undermine that policy.
Disagree if you wish, but express that disagreement with the Administration and keep your damn yap shut in public, especially on foreign soil.
Politically tone-deaf, politically blind, astoundingly ignorant or just plain doesn’t give a damn. The reason doesn’t matter.
What does matter is that Pelosi stepped way over the line on the one and should be yanked back so hard it undoes her plastic surgery.
LEARNEDFOOT ADDS: San Fran Nan ought not be as worried about the Constitutional implications of her freelance diplomacy as she should be about the very real consequences she could face (but almost certainly won't) under the Logan Act:
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
18 USC s. 953
Yikes. I'm sure CREW is going to get right on this...
"Doug's Delight," so named because even those with the poorest of skills should be able to make it to the green in 3 or 4 shots, is the first of Valleywood's four par-3s. The easiest hole on the course, #2 plays 153 from the tips and a generous 136 from the MilF tees. A short depressed fairway (before last year, this hole was named "Woody Allen"), leads up to a large, well bunkered two-tier green.
Play to this hole is pretty straightforward. Just don't miss the green to the left. The narrow rough to the left of the green slopes quickly toward a well treed cliff, and does not typically hold errant shots. The safe tee shot is right at the center of the green, taking the two large bunkers out of play. The green's two tiers are not as severe as those on #1. But even while the typical pin placement will be tucked behind one of the bunkers, it's not all that risky to take a shot at the pin. Since anyone with any nuts will tee off #2 with a short iron, you can gently drop one on the green and expect it to stick.
FOOT'S SECRET TIP: After you finish #2 be careful driving your cart to the third tee. There's a nasty hairpin turn at the bottom of the hill. If you miss it, you'll end up vaulting yourself on to McAndrew's Road, and will probably die.