As far as hate crimes go, this is a hate crime.
Noted asshole Dan Riehl, for instance.
Tragic to be sure. But in researching the item – other than this early NY Post item the media fails to mention that the perp is apparently an Hispanic male. Even the NYT’s seems to have decided that tidbit of news is somehow not fit to print. I wonder why?
Probably because of Benghazi?
No, honestly, the fuck? That's the takeaway from a man being murdered because of his perceived sexual orientation, that the True Horror is that the Liberal Media is conspiring to reveal that the killer is Hispanic?
It's deeply weird. But if you want to understand sociopathy, ask a sociopath, so hello, Robert Stacy McCain, whom I will quote without linking, because gross:
A deluge of immigration, the breakdown of the family, the failure of public education, economic malaise — pious liberal sermonizing cannot eliminate the sources of social friction that lead to crimes like this.
And it's true. If only we adhered to the traditional values of the antebellum South, openly gay black men probably would never be shot by lower class Hispanics.
For fuck's sake.
And this is a gem:
In a culture where the ordinary sources of male self-esteem are stigmatized, doesn’t violent machismo become more common?
A common old-timey "source of male self-esteem" used to involve brutalizing "fags.'" In this "culture," though, gay-bashing can get you locked up. Thus, "stigmatizing" gay-bashing as utterly morally revolting may lead to less gay-bashing... but that might give "males" a sad, and they might lash out and gay-bash!
Truly, goofball bigots possess a dizzying intellect.
And then there is this idiot.
The gunman was Hispanic, not white.
HAW! SUCK IT LIE-BERALS!
Another thing that needs to be asked in this senseless shooting and murder of an innocent individual. How are those gun laws working in NYC Mayor Bloomberg? Like all laws, especially gun laws, they only affect law-abiding citizens.
Especially this is true of law-abiding crazy people who abide by the law and buy guns legally somewhere else, and then bring them back to New York City and kill people. That this killer may have abided by the law in the matter of a gun purchase until he decided to use that gun to murder someone for being gay, may be precisely the point.
He got shot in a place where he should have been safe because it was HIS place to be who he was. New York Strong: terrorists of all kinds can fuck off.
MAS. I mean, this killer clearly is a terrorist, right? He hated the American values of equality and tolerance, and he turned to violence in order to intimidate We the People from expressing these values.
Why, if I were less committed to Civil Liberties, I might call for a federal investigation into any Radical Clerics who may have had some influence upon this violent young traitor.
Total non-hack Hans von Spakovsky is determined to prove that voter fraud is a National Scourge, because he is a Proud Patriot, and also because pretending like voter fraud is a genuine problem is the scam that keeps him from having to get a job.
In the midst of the scandals engulfing the White House this week, an interesting story out of Kansas City, Mo., has gotten lost. Those who insist that (a) there is no voter fraud and (b) it does not affect elections when it occurs are probably happy about that.
Oh my balls.
Nobody says there is "no voter fraud"; they say "voter fraud is very rare, voter impersonation is nearly non-existent and much of the problems associated with alleged fraud in elections relates to unintentional mistakes by voters or election administrators."
And as an obvious corollary I'd add that if voter fraud did ever manage to affect an election, it would involve unlikely but still imaginable circumstances involving low turnout and a tight vote. It would also be highly local, and would also be astoundingly obvious, and thus whoever did it would inevitably get caught.
Back to you, von S.
On Monday, John C. Moretina pleaded guilty to a federal felony count of voter fraud. In the August 2010 Democratic primary, Moretina falsely claimed he was living in Missouri’s 40th legislative district just so he could vote in the primary there.
This is a Democratic district so the winner of the primary, John J. Rizzo, was highly likely to (and, in fact, did) win the general election for district representative. Why is this particular voter-fraud case so important? Because Rizzo defeated his Democratic opponent, Will Royster, by only one vote, 664 to 663.
And how did the villain not get away with it? Was it meddling kids?
On Monday, John C. Moretina pleaded guilty to a federal felony count of voter fraud. In the August 2010 Democratic primary, Moretina falsely claimed he was living in Missouri’s 40th legislative district just so he could vote in the primary there....
The plea agreement did not say whom Moretina voted for. But he is Rizzo’s uncle.
Well, fuck me, there exist clannish shenanigans involving races for state offices. Who knew.
The fun parts:
1. Even in elections involving about 1500 voters, it's not at all likely that a single case of fraud would matter.
2. It's clearly hard to pull off outright fraud in an election like this: guy got busted, after all, and it wasn't hard to bust him.
3. Fraud of this local, clannish sort might work in cases where a local machine runs everything, but then, none of the right-wing "voter fraud solutions" would remedy that, because the machine would enforce these remedies.
4. Relatedly, a photo ID check would have done squat to prevent the kind of fraud described in this case.
5. Extrapolating from this outer-orbit outlier to any sort of policy regarding national elections would be obvious horseshit.
Sometimes the "stupid or evil" nut is a hard one to crack. But with van Spakovsky, sucker is evil, simple and plain.
Raiders of the Lost Ark villain...
The Republican Party does not like it when lots of Americans vote. This is rather an important fact about Our Nation Today,
In the midst of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) scandal, individuals and groups, alike, are continuing to come forward with ever-startling allegations. On Wednesday, Dr. Anne Hendershott, a devout Catholic and a noted sociologist, professor and author, exclusively told TheBlaze that she believes she may have been one of the IRS’s targets.
According to Hendershott, the IRS audited her in 2010 and demanded to know who was paying her.
Uh... the IRS kind of asks everyone to explain who is paying them?
While they did not ask directly it seemed as though the agent wanted to know about the leanings of these particular organizations.
Hendershott was surprised she was being audited on business grounds considering she does not operate an entrepreneurial endeavor in the traditional sense. In addition to her academic work, she told TheBlaze that she occasionally freelances for Catholic outlets and for the Wall Street Journal. But can this really be considered “business” activity?
“I don’t make a lot of money from writing. In fact most years I don’t show a profit,” she told TheBlaze.
Are you shitting me?
Yes, you have to report that shit. I don't make a lot of money writing every year, whether from this online malarkey or the other less disreputable gigs I get, but if you make enough you have to report it. Most years I make about 3K from miscellaneous writing fees. Not a lot, and yes I'm grateful for the dough, but yes there are fucking taxes. And I pay them.
I mean, holy shit:
But can this really be considered “business” activity?
Yes! You sold a thing! That is "business"!
But the circumstances surrounding the irregular nature of the experience don’t end there. Hendershott noted it was particularly surprising that she, alone, was audited. Her husband, who brings in the vast majority of the family’s income, was not included in the IRS’s inquiry — even though the Hendershotts always files jointly.
He doesn't do any freelance writing, then.
Carry on, this is hilarious:
While asking about the deposits, the agent wanted to know if the monies came from groups and, if so, more about who the organizations were.
The mention of groups, Hendershott notes, is particularly interesting, as she had been writing for numerous Catholic outlets and organizations at the time. In addition to Catholic World Report and the Catholic Advocate, she also penned op-eds for the Wall Street Journal. Many of these writings were critical of President Barack Obama and his policies.
Here's what happened. She wrote stuff, got paid for it, didn't declare it, and is trying to skate.
If you got paid by someone for something and you didn't tell the IRS about it, yes, they will eventually ask "who paid you, who are they, and how much?"
I mean, nice try...
"The IRS wants me to pay income tax on the income I got from writing a Wall Street Journal op-ed! MARXISM!"
And there are those who instruct me about the evils of saying "fuck" because that Disqualifies Me from Admittance into the Civilized Debate.
Fuck fuck fuck fuck fuckaninny fuckerfuck. FUCK.
Not much from our new favorite TownHaller this week, though this is piquant:
The only reason Obama is strolling through the Rose Garden, golfing with Tiger Woods and cracking jokes about Jay-Z is because the media is not holding him accountable.
If only the gosh-darned Em-ess-Em would do its job, Obama would be out there putting with Rory McIlroy* and name-dropping Madison Rising.
Hehdizzle indeed. Or hehdizzle. Or "shoot me."
When Veruca Salt's dad needs to hire a ghostwriter for his kid's private diary, here's his gal.
Let us instead cast asparagus upon Chuck Norris's most recent emanation, wherein he gives up trying to hawk the ghastly books he pretended to write, and instead attempts to persuade his demented, mush-gummed fanbase to waste their government checks on an anti-government book he forced his mother to pretend to write.
So, hello, Chuck Norris, pictured below.
You're looking fine!
What now with the your mother having Advice for America now?
"Back in the 1930s, any work was good work. We picked cotton, picked up cans, scrap metal, whatever it took to get by. The message from yesteryear is: Don't be too proud to do whatever it takes to meet the financial needs of your family.
"There's no shame in a hard day's work, whatever it may be. It seems today that people would go on unemployment before they would work in a field picking anything. That would not have been the case when I was growing up."
Clearly, your boy is following your Noble Example. In the 2000s, any work was good work. He picked up sentences, paragraphs, sometimes whole columns, whatever it took to make like he was "writing original material". The message from thisteryear is: don't be too proud to cash any damn check you can as long as it's scribbled by suckers.
Also too, clearly, our current Role Models are undocumented Mexican immigrants, who will work any damn job for any money, and who rarely apply for unemployment. Just like George Washington!
"We didn't have much. In fact, we had nothing at all, compared with people today, but we had one another. We were poor, but rich in love. We've lost the value of family and friends today, and we've got to gain it back if we're ever to get back on track. If we lose all our stuff and still have one another and our health, what have we lost? We don't really own anything anyway. Everything is ultimately on loan to us. The Bible says, 'The earth is the Lord and all it contains.'
Damn straight. Poor people nowadays are too materialistic.
Also dig the bit about how maybe, just maybe, Roosevelt had a better record than did Jesus in helping folks out during the Great Depression. And that communal action along the principles of An Injury to One Is an Injury to All ("We thought and worked in community. The way we saw it was: If one of us was chained, none of us was free") is All-American and Godly.
But this is the Fun Part:
"There was nothing easy during the Great Depression, but we endured and made it through, and we learned even more how to simplify, help one another and depend upon God. Children took on chores at an early age and by early teens were assisting in some ways with the provisions of the home. Yesteryears' kids often bore today's adult responsibilities. Back then, we grew up fast and often married young. In fact, by the time I was sixteen years old, five of the seven Scarberry children in our family were married, including me."
Child labor, child marriage, don't ever imagine a democratically elected government could ever represent your immediate interests or redress your material grievances...?
What a glorious time in American history! Everyone was poor and desperate and we had Jim Crow!
I'm sure in person Chuck Norris's mom is quite lovely, but this is the public arena, and hence, one must ask, is anyone actually paying for this horseshit?
Forget it, NewsMax and TownHall exist, so yeah, obviously.
MAS. Whoops, forgot to follow up on the asterisk (*) up there next to the name "Rory McIlroy."
Just meant to point out that the douchiest web-site ever is the Official Rory McIlroy Homepage.
It's douchetastic. Did you know... he's an athlete?
Boston’s cardinal is to boycott a Jesuit college’s graduation where Taoiseach Enda Kenny is the commencement speaker, over his support for the proposed Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill.
In a statement, Cardinal Sean O’Malley said abortion was “a crime against humanity” and the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has asked Catholic institutions not to honour those who promote it.
Mr Kenny is due to receive an honorary degree from Boston College at the May 20th commencement. Cardinal O’Malley said that since the college had not withdrawn its invitation and Mr Kenny had not declined it, “I shall not attend the graduation”.
This is the good bit:
“It is my ardent hope that Boston College will work to redress the confusion, disappointment and harm caused by not adhering to the bishops’ directives,” he said.
Ochone, the confusion, disappointment, an' harm the College is after causin'! It's thrown the worl' in a TERRIBLE state o' chassis!
It's rather difficult to believe at this late date that anyone much cares about, or even less for, the moral pronouncements of any Boston cardinal -- except perhaps for those scattered demented few who pay attention to the utterly discredited and darkly comical fatwas issued forth by the Radical Clerics of the U. S. Catholic fringe.
Anyway, hooray for these MA shouty idiots! Tim Corcoran and R. S. Devane salute you. Both of those fine fellows had nothing but praise for the Boston Irish, who never met a moral dilemma they couldn't use as a fucking bludgeon.
MAS. All you need to know about how screwy Irish American Catholicism is, never mind Irish Catholicism, is to be Boston College and have to decide "huh, a visiting Leader of a Free Nation who was to speak and a local Bishop who would have waved, who wins?"
Eamon de Valera would have felt he had no choice but to ignore O'Malley in these circumstances, by the way. That's not even disputable.
I haven't read/watched The Hunger Games until tonight, when we watched the fillum because the 46-Year-Old wanted to. The 13YO wandered down to see the Thrilling Conclusion. Afterwards the 13YO offered this Interesting Experiment:
If you could pick 24 Compelling Characters from History or Fiction who would provide a Riveting Spectacle if they were sent to the woods and forced to struggle to the death in the manner depicted in the Hunger Games, whom would you select?
Because why not, here are my 24.
1. John Kerry
2. Indira Gandhi
3. Paul Stanley
4. Clara Peller
5. Leopold Bloom
7. Plankton (from SpongeBob)
8. Marisa Tomei
9. Larry Csonka
10. Paula Poundstone
11. George "The Animal" Steele
12. Grace O'Malley
13. Pope Pius XII/Bill Buckner
15. Emo Philips
17. The Good Fairy
18. Lucy (of the poems where's she's dead, usually, not the precocious young Ms. Van Pelt)
19. Cato the Younger
20. Karen (the Computer Wife of Plankton)
21. Mookie Wilson
23. Lord Rochester
24. Dorothy Parker
Mookie Wilson wins, of course, no matter how you go on #13.
And the Plankton/Shelob sex scene always achieves Enduring Internet Success.
The BENGHAZI sshite could have been said about Whitewater.
What matters is not whether or not the right will screech shit about H. Clinton; they will anyhow!
The key question is whether or not Village media insiders will agree with this particular line of nonsense.
The NCAA University of Miami "investigation" somehow becomes even more absurd.
If you haven't been playing along at home, this is all to do with the possibility that unpaid student athletes might have gotten upwards of $250 from a convicted and obviously shifty con artist with every incentive to lie.
Women are not very excellent at music, for obvious reasons: as one of America's Top Feminists and Most Respected Cultural Know-Persons, Camille Paglia, once famously put it, "There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper." That is a very smart thing she said and is in no way glib and crazy.
In this enlightened spirit a Five Foot Furry explains Lady Music she dislikes.
There are fewer female musicians for me to hate, because a) there are fewer female musicians and b) I’m a chick.
It pains me to admit that I’m prone to the same irrational tribalism I denounce in others, but it’s true:
The second Sarah Palin strode onto that stage to accept the VP nomination, I turned into a six-year-old:
“A girl! A girl!! Yayyyyyy!!!”
I knew nothing about her policies. I didn’t care. I still don’t, much.
Because female performers are easier for me to identify with, they’re harder for me to dislike.
Uh, well, I suppose points must be awarded for up-front copping to being an easily influenced idiot with no real expertise before offering your opinion on a subject like "women in popular music, rock specifically." The HELLO I AM STUPID AND BIASED caution sign sure is useful!
#3 Sheryl Crow
When she dated Lance Armstrong, the nasty joke making the rounds was that Sheryl Crow is proof that cancer is contagious.
Thank goodness the virtuous Mr. Armstrong managed to heroically defy her harpy embrace.
Also, Crow is attractive and wrote some songs that had appealing hooks, and is a liberal. Our Five Feet of Furry admits she doesn't know fuck-all else about Crow's music before happily slagging it, but who gives a shit?
It's good enough for anti-government work.
#2 Lady Gaga
As a homely girl made good in the music biz, Lady Gaga kind of messes up my Sheryl Crow theory.
Yeah, a tidbit, a smidgen.
Lady Gaga is "homely"? I don't know; judge for yourself.
Frankly I haven't given much thought to Madame Gaga, and don't know any of her songs by name, as I am old and grey and full of sleep, and nodding by the fire, and have only just taken down this old Internet to see who is lately wearing fishnets and a Cap'n Crunch hat.
All I actually know about L. GG is that she seems to be pissing people off whom I quite dislike. So I'm a fan!
Our Five Foot Furry knows as much about her as I do, and hence says:
Lady Gaga got rich on the indifferent stupidity and un-sophistication of the average person.
Nothing is more "un-sophisticated" and "average" than assuming your canned wisdom (idées reçues, redsnouts) is advanced sophistication beyond the grasp of the rubes.
#1 Chrissy Hynde
Look: “Brass in Pocket” is a dumb song.
No it isn't. It's fantastic.
Because it rather is. Listen to it -- do I really need to defend it? Can Hynde really not sing, or write pop--rock?
Oh, but there is more highly analytical criticism...
Chrissie Hynde is a boring lead singer, besides being a smug, humourless leftoid.
That "besides" does a lot of work to counterbalance the "obviously wrong because Hynde sells tickets" bit of reality.
Also Hynde has had issues with the people in her band, and every other rock band has not been nuts, so what is up with that bitch. (Literal head-banging recommended here; what else can you do?)
In conclusion, read the comments to the PJs Media Lady Gaga link. You wll be wowed.
Because reading these comments aloud will IN NO WAY SUMMON CTHULHU. THAT IS A PERNICIOUS MYTH. KEEP READING, PUNY HUMANS.
I JOKE. THERE IS NO CTHULHU.
We are broke! Slash spending! Spending bad! Deficits bad!
It's always worth noting that this General Rule has its exceptions, such as War; whenever military action is contemplated, questions about whether or not it Can Be Afforded are suddenly Un-American.
But there are other areas in which nobody ever seems to wonder about what it costs.
Our nation is not poor. It is unimaginably wealthy.
When the money is desired, it flows, and no one cares whether or not it's wasted.
You don't often see this, so it's worth flagging -- a genuine, consistent asshole.
The Congressional Budget Office released updated projections today to find that the federal budged deficit is smaller than at this point last year, and smaller than at any time since the 2008 financial crisis. There are three main reasons for that: the slowly-improving economy is putting more people back to work, which means fewer safety net payments and more tax revenue; defense spending cuts; and the tax hikes from January 1 2013 have gone into effect.
Much of this is to be expected - as the economy recovers, there will naturally be an increase in tax revenue and a drop in social safety net spending. At least part of this, however, is due to President Obama's ideal version of a "grand bargain" on tax hikes and spending cuts - mostly tax hikes on upper income-earners and spending cuts that fall heavily on the military. It also is not a sign that President Obama is some kind of deficit hawk. He's just a textbook Keynesian.
Well, more a Cliff's Notes Keynesian, though given the dismal bog that is our anti-science Congress, whatever.
Maybe if we had real Keynesianism we'd have had actual economic growth and Amercans would have better lives!
But nah, Keynes was a fag...
Our Public Discourse is Swell.
Over There, I think I pretty much said all there is to say about Niall of the Nine Wankages, but since the only purpose of this blog is malice aforethought* there is no reason not to chew through the whole godawful slice of fried dung with a view towards pointing out that Ferguson is an absolute tit.
Last week I said something stupid about John Maynard Keynes. Asked to comment on Keynes’ famous observation “In the long run we are all dead,” I suggested that Keynes was perhaps indifferent to the long run because he had no children, and that he had no children because he was gay. This was doubly stupid. First, it is obvious that people who do not have children also care about future generations. Second, I had forgotten that Keynes’ wife Lydia miscarried.
What an asshole.
Ferguson didn't slur "people who do not have children," he slurred homosexuals, because he does that shit.
Because this is trebly stupid. Gay people as it happens can raise children! No kidding!
As for the rest, "I am only hatefully glib in my public appearances, here are the books where I am thoughtful, and by the way Sullivan" is a load of crap.
*If I were a Drag Queen or Roller Derby Bruiser Chick my name would be "Alice Aforethought."**
**Actual Drag Queens or Roller Derby Bruiser Chicks are welcome to steal this, though a Whiskey Fire plug would be welcome, as well as amusingly baffling to your immediate audience.
Oh, hello there. More deep thoughts to share with us, then?
I cannot wait.
Teach gun safety in classrooms and leave sex education to parents. Plan B won’t save young people from incurable STDs, but guns will protect women and children from being raped or murdered. The more young people know about guns, the safer our society will be.
So, uh, what?
If every child in America carried a gun to school every day, America would be safer? Because their gym teacher would teach them about gun safety? So they can, I don't know, shoot chlamydia in its stupid face with a gun?
Is THAT your thesis...?
Well, OK then --
Rush Limbaugh said on his talk radio show on May 1: “We know kids are gonna get guns anyway, why not teach them how to use them?” The king of talk was right. Instead of pushing morning-after pills on 15-year-old girls, we should be showing young people how to responsibly use the preeminent tool they have to defend themselves in the event of a violent attack—a gun.
All 15 year old girls should carry guns with them at all times? Because then they won't get pregnant? In what world does this make sense?
Beg pardon. Carry on.
Americans use guns to hold off assault far more than they use guns to commit murder or violent crime. Indeed, Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck has shown that Americans use guns to defensively prevent crime about 2 million times a year—often by merely brandishing a weapon in front of a would-be-assailant.
Hold on -- do you mean that 1992 study that "included gun uses against animals and did not distinguish civilian uses from military or police uses"? Because surely you realize as a thoughtful observer that you have to carefully analyze statistical research and account for bias, and that actually even this highly dubious study said "2.5 million" and not "2 million," so you've even botched your own point? Surely, you care about your facts -- excuse me?
Yes, I know I said "butt"...
Sure, point to you.
But how do we end gun violence, then?
More and more, psychiatric drugs are being miss-prescribed or abused and President Obama’s FDA is contributing to this mess. Medications are increasingly being prescribed to young people that could be setting them up for violent behavior. Instead of prescribing talk therapy, we are loading young people up on meds that are known to cause suicidal thoughts and/or incite aggression.
But... What medications are these? And... "talk therapy"? We need more Freud? What?
And if as you said before, violent crime is down overall, which you said is due to concealed carry laws, how could that be true when you then say that the youngsters, they're ever-more increasingly hepped up on goofballs?
Why, it's almost like you're totally whiffing on some obvious contradictions in what you're saying, or else you don't care, or else, perhaps, when the wind blows hard enough from the East your Western ear emits a mournful B-flat, reminiscent of what happens when a toddler learns how to make sounds breathing over an empty Coke bottle --
Oh you're not done.
It’s time for young people to go through gun education before their teachers brainwash them about gun control.
Wait, weren't you going to tell us how if 15 year old girls had firearms training, they wouldn't need the morning after pill? Because that was kind of strange and I thought you'd maybe explain that --
Well congratulations, I guess, on finding the precise part of the world where you'll manage to keep yourself fed and employed. Since in the real world, you couldn't get a gig hiring yourself out as mulch...
Over at the Corner the Big-Zygotians are shell-cracking the Little-Zygotians over who gets to talk about teen girls and sex with the Greatest Authority. Yes, it's gross.
It begins with something almost vaguely sensible appearing at NRO; the jaw, it drops.
So why require a prescription [for the pill]? The federal government’s existing requirement isn’t about safety; it’s about controlling women’s health-care choices, forcing them to make annual visits to the gynecologist.
Well, yes.The NRO comments to the above are exactly as sparkling as you'd expect. Here is a more or less randomly angled sweet brown trout:
Drugs that alter the menstrual cycle are not benign. They do in fact meet the definition of poison, not deadly if used under medical supervision, but none the same poison. They cause physical and mental changes in a woman's body. Regulation is supposed to assure medical supervision, which is really needed. It is best that government for the most part stay away from medicine, and absolutely prohibited for politicians.
Oh, one more. These are THE PRINGLES OF INSANITY, you cannot munch just one.
We are falling into the ridicule situation where a male teenager will be able to change his sex and grow breasts buying over-the-counter medicine, but he will not be able to buy testosterone to enhance his physique. It is time that government relaxes regulation in the entire health-care system. The country is not doing better than other countries
There is however a more nuanced rebuttal on offer, front-paged by one Michael New:
I’d suggest that we will struggle to enact meaningful legal protections of unborn children until the culture becomes more chaste — and a chaste culture is incompatible with a contraceptive culture. All in all, pro-lifers would do well to remain skeptical of the panaceas proclaimed by contraception advocates.
There was ever a "chaste culture"? When? Not even the powers that be in Iran can manage that!
New's point is stupid, but at least it's consonant with its idiot premises. This wan rebuttal is a Fun Joke:
Sexual liberation and abortion are certainly related, but they’re not one and the same
Yes they are! The woman chooses!
Given that contraceptive use is pretty much ubiquitous and that premarital sex was the norm even in the 1950s, a great many Americans must be finding a way to reconcile pro-life views with their participation in the “contraceptive culture.”
So, lots of Americans are willing to harshly judge other people for doing what they themselves enjoy doing? PRAISE THE LORD AND PASS THE CONDOMS!
I mean, sing it proud, again!
a great many Americans must be finding a way to reconcile pro-life views with their participation in the “contraceptive culture.”
That this all nonsense makes a zygote hash (yum!) of the whole idiot anti-choice "position" need not hardly be mentioned, but what the hey:
There is a fair amount of support for the pro-life perspective evident in opinion polls — sometimes even a majority, depending on exactly what question is asked. The more conservative states, at the very least, stand ready to restrict abortion as soon as the Supreme Court gets out of the way.
Laws have not been able to prevent human beings from desiring contraception... but they'll totally stop abortion!
Dear reader, like you, I oppose Big Government.
Oh wait I meant "I dislike unsanctioned fucking."
Goslings, me, and daddy!
Posted by ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© and cross-posted at my place. Mouse over pics for captions, and click them for larger versions.
Sarah Palin is in the news because the Lame Stream Media doesn't like to be accused of bias towards carnival geeks.
Sarah Palin blasted President Barack Obama and gun control advocates Friday, blaming them for "exploiting" recent mass shooting tragedies to promote their political agenda.
That would be the "political agenda" of not having schoolchildren murdered by crazy people armed with weapons that are remarkably efficient for the purposes of murdering schoolchildren.
Speaking to a welcoming crowd at the National Rifle Association convention in Houston, the folksy former governor from Alaska also used chewing tobacco at one point to draw some laughs.
I bet she did.
If I were Michael Bloomberg, whom I have cordially disliked since even before he became a Republican, I would, for shitsn'giggles, pass a law banning the swilling of chew-juice from pint glasses, just to watch Palin try to "draw a laugh" chugging this in front of the happy shouty morons who pay her to talk "folksy."
Politics of emotion, she argued, won't make the country safer. "It's the opposite of leadership. It's the manipulation of the people by the politicians for their own political ends. It's not just self-serving. It's destructive and it must stop."
So, then, if your kid or spouse is killed for some reason, you're not allowed to speak your mind about what you think the best public policies might be to prevent other Americans from suffering your loss, because to do so is to embrace the "politics of emotion."
This is a thesis jaw-dropping in its idiocy and hypocrisy; does it even need rebuttal?
Obama didn't compel the Newtown family members to appear by rounding them up at gunpoint. Or if he did, kindly prove that.
Anyway, what we have here is a situation where a relatively small minority of Americans are claiming the right, ultimately backed up by their posession of weapons, to define the True Nature of American Freedom.
Which is fine, I guess, at least according to CNN...
How this differs in any important philosophical regard from the position, of, say, the Provisional Irish Republican Army, I cannot say.
How it differs in any practical sense, well (McVeigh cough) who knows. Because this is all just hypothetical!
Fortunately, the Republican 2016 field thus far remains mercifully free of the charlatans and crackpots who came to the fore in 2012. The early field is intelligent and hard-working. Paul Ryan has immense policy knowledge, Ted Cruz is a brilliant litigator and debater, Marco Rubio has made himself central to the most important legislative initiative of the year. Even Rand Paul has carefully repositioned himself as a sober-minded U.S. Senator, distancing himself from paranoia and bigotry.Clap louder & harder, Dave, that always helps.