Bomb Throwing Pacifist
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
The Way Starbucks Sees It
Java giant Starbucks finds itself entangled in yet another brewing controversy over its "The Way I See It" campaign.
One sentence in, and we're already encountering coffee-related puns and other presupposed bons mots. Matt, no offense, but there's a major difference between being able to play a game of random association on your particular topic of choice, and inserting a funny, cutting, and pithy observation at a particular juncture in the conversation. The former you seem to have well under control. The latter is, like the candy bar you have taped to your office ceiling, somewhat over your head.
Starbucks has a history of placing liberal, pro-homosexual and anti-God statements submitted by customers, celebrities and other public figures on the side of its coffee cups for customers to contemplate while they wash down a muffin with a Frappe-Mocha-whatever.
The fiends! Don't they know better than to risk the wrath of J. Matt Barber and the combined forces of the Concerned Women for America?
I also enjoy Matt's dismissive reference to Starbucks' product, referring to them as "Frappe-Mocha-Whatevers." Because if that's the level of precision he normally employs when trying to place an order at a restaurant, it's no wonder that a high percentage of his food seems to taste like snot and dandruff flakes.
Except perhaps enable terrorists with them. After all, while the free market is widely-acknowledged as being the Ultimate Goodness(tm) when it comes to all matters physikal, rhetorical, and philosophikal, as far as domestic security is concerned, the free market must yield right of way (unless the matter under discussion is fuel self-sufficiency or beefed up port security).
one questions whether it makes good business sense to intentionally alienate a large percentage of the coffee drinking public with these inflammatory political musings.
In short: don't do that, Starbucks! You're gonna piss of the rubes! Why can't you stick to something less controversial? Like American flags, or yellow ribbons, or the statue of liberty? Or one of those Jesus fish in the midst of eating a Darwin fish? Can't you tell that your iconoclastic tendencies and reckless pursuit of free thought puts your business plan in harm's way?
The Quaker adds: Dude, it ain't our fault liberals make the best coffee (Starbucks), ice cream (Ben and Jerry's), ketchup (Heinz) and the best search engines (teh Google). The Free Market has spoken!
Many customers with traditional values find it quite offensive.
As well as those of us who value our traditions. Four bucks for a freaking coffee?? If fifty-cent gas-station coffee is good enough for grandpa, by gum, it's good enough for us!
Although the company has used some religion oriented statements in the past — such as one by Purpose Driven Life author Rick Warren — the preponderance of politically and spiritually themed quotes that make the "cup cut" seem to represent a hard-left ideology.
Translation: the failure of Starbucks to quote directly from the Bible, Ronald Reagan, or tell fags and liberals they are going to burn in hell is a clear sign of the unyielding, relentless hatred to which me and my conservative bretheren are subjected every day.
I know... it's difficult to believe that a company headquartered in Seattle, Washington, would labor under such a leftist bent, but sadly, such is the case.
They of course have never worked the land and developed the common-sense, salt-of-the-earth thinking that can't be acquired through all that fancy-smancy book-learnin', like J. Matt Barber and Ronald Reagan did.
Again, that's the company's prerogative. But come on guys. How about some open mindedness — a little balance?
Translation: Your failure to condemn what me and my 28%-er cohort finds offensive is proof of your bigotry and close-mindedness. I mean, have you ever really stopped and considered the fact that homofags might go to hell? How dare you, sir? How DARE you?
Concerned Women for America (CWA) pulled the lid off Starbucks leftist corporate ideology a couple of years ago and stirred up controversy by pointing out that Starbucks had sponsored multiple "gay pride" events and had given monetary support to ultra-liberal abortion provider Planned Parenthood.
If by "pulled the lid off Starbucks" you mean they pointed out something everyone else already knew [viz. Starbucks is generally a progressively-oriented company], and "a couple years ago" you mean "eighteen months" [viz. August of 2005], you'd get a statement generally approaching the truth.
For a while, the company seemed to back off a bit with the liberal activism, but they now appear to be warming things up again.
Sometimes, I just feel like spitting on my hands, donning my voyageur cap, and splitting something open with a tomahawk. Usually I picture a tree stump or a watermelon. Today, however, I have an altogether different picture in my mind.
So, in the interest of equal time, I've submitted the following "The Way I See It" quote from a Christian conservative perspective for Starbucks to consider.
Which I am sure they will give it the careful and thoughtful consideration it is due, before flushing it down the toilet with all the other turds.
Friday, May 18, 2007
Shorter "Americans for Truth" ("a Group Devoted Solely to Countering ‘Gay’ Movement") president Peter LaBarbera:
Even though he really loved homosexuals as people, their quick and scornful condemnation of him and his passing pretty much proves Jerry Falwell was right all along.
How to properly execute a radical leftist takedown...
After all, I am happy that Nicholas Sarkozy won the French election, am generally supportive of restrictions on immigration, don't usually like "nanny state" restrictions (like mandatory seatbelt and helmet laws), and am opposed to the tightening of gun control beyond what we already have in place and is necessary for the maintenance of law and order. I do not support the establishment of a 1970s confiscatory-style European welfare state in America (although I do think we could go much further...basic health-care as a basic minimum), and while I recognize that major inequality and institutional racism exists and continues to exist in this country, I don't think it is as all-pervasive and as conspiratorial as many people to my left seem to think.
In other words, by American standards, I'm a bomb-throwing communist. By international standards, however, I'm a moderate centrist, maybe even a little to the right of center.
However, just when I start to think I am the single most rabid left-wing person in the country and am preparing to set up my own modernized version of the Rote Armee Faktion or Weatherman Underground, I end up meeting some real screaming leftists. I use the term "leftists" in the loosest possible sense of the word, for while they are on the left side of the political spectrum, there is hardly anything "liberal" about them, at least according to the classic definition of the term, viz. "open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc."
Whereas I have always understood liberalism to be rooted in a sense of genial self-reflection, introspection, open-mindedness and willingness to modify one's beliefs based on the ability of the evidence to convince the disinterested skeptic, in certain areas of the blogosphere, these are considered the hallmarks of wishy-washy centrism and seen as indicative of doctrinal impurity. In this regard, yesterday evening and this morning, I was unpleasantly surprised to discover that there are, in fact, people on the left as disinterested in the spirit of free inquiry and freedom of thought as there are people on the right.
So, ladies and gentlemen, buckle down and prepare for this special edition of Molotov Quaker, entitled "How to properly execute a radical leftist takedown (with pictures!)"
Setting: A guest post on blog Jesus' General
Topic: A Quaker Oats ad featuring what appear to be Latino children is subliminally racist because it portrays white people as the great provider, feeding the masses of unwashed brown people.
Notable Phrases: In this Quaker ad immediately adjacent to the Smiling Quaker Man were a couple Latinas, or maybe black girls. They were brown, that is clear. They were happily tugging on the tall pink-faced, white-haired icon-man's sleeve for some food. Oh, I know—you can tell that I am reading things into it that don't exist. That's part of my madness, you see. It comes with having beastly and primitive blood in me, it scrambles my mind up something terrible. Bear with me.
The Engagement Commences: Hoping to stimulate a bit of debate, I challenge the assertion of the article, that the ad is subliminally racist, while trying to maintain a light tone.
I write: I don't get it. I mean, I'm open-minded, liberal and all that good stuff. But still. You have some Latina girls scoring some food from the Quaker Oats dude. I fail to see where the insult or insensitivity is.
I mean, I get and by large agree with the whole "white fucked up the world and continue to oppress brown people" narrative, and you can argue (as you do) that this represents a subliminal message which is designed to make "white" people feel good about themselves for symbolically feeding the masses of "unwashed brown people," but in casual observation, it seems to me that this has veered away from the realm of material culture and into the field of art criticism.
More to the point, if all the commercials ever showed was white kids chasing after the Quaker Oats guy, would that mean that the commercials are an example of cultural reinforcement and that the Quaker Oats man represents an authoritarian WASP nurturing his flock at the exclusion of all other ethnic groups? As Freud once famously said, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
But then again, maybe I'm an insensitive gringo (and a Quaker, to boot!)
Battle is Joined:
First Ghost of Adolph Russ fires a salvo:
"I don't get it. I mean, I'm open-minded, liberal and all that good stuff. But still.
You're right, you don't "get it."
Since you're not sensitive wrt ethnicity, why are there no "white" corners in the NFL? Are all the white kids, who play that position, just lazier than the African Americans who beat them out?
I'm always interested in how white people know they are "white." How does every white person I know, know that Jessica Alba and Halle Berry are BLACK actresses. Is that like ethnic radar? Are Puerto Ricans white or black? ARod's Puerto Rican, isn't he. Does he qualify as white? What about that Alan Deshowitz fella? Do you really consider him "white?" How about Pollacks, oops, I'm sorry, I meant the politically correct version, Poles, because you're an "open-minded," and "liberal" kind of guy. Do Poles qualify as white? Hitler didn't think so, but what about you? How about the Italians? Do you really consider them "white?"
You live in a fantasy world, where you imagine that you are not "sensitive," about ethnicity, but everyone else (non-whites) are. Sometime, ask a car load of "brothers" for a ride into your lilly white suburbs. You're an open minded liberal, so I'm sure they won't charge you much. After you leave the ghetto, let us know how long it takes before the cops pull you over. Sometimes an ignorant white supremacist is just an ignorant white supremacist. The ones who pratter about how "open-minded" and "liberal," do the most damage imho.
Not one to let sleeping dogs lie, self-proclaimed "feminatzi" MzNicky leads her wing into the fray:
Marc: No, dude, I hate to tell ya, but you're not "open-minded and liberal all that good stuff." This is proved by your subsequent observation that you "fail to see where the insult or insensitivity is." That these two sentences occur in the same paragraph should provide for even the least-aware individual an insight into self-contradiction.
Nez has clearly deconstructed the subliminal racism in this ad. It's "veered away from the realm of material culture and into the field of art criticism"? What does that even mean? Are you actually equating the avaricious manipulations of ad agency hot-shots with art? And what do you mean by "material culture"?
The rest of your gibberish springs from your cherished position of obtuse white male privilege. Until you realize that, you have nothing to say that's of use.
Tactical Situation at 0900 hours:
Opponents' preliminary thrusts have so far established that...
* I "don't get it"
* I am a closet racist
* I am probably a white supremacist
* I am similar to Hitler in my views
* I live in "lilly [sic] white suburbs" and fear "brothers."
* I am not a real liberal
* I my arguments are gibberish
* I live a life blissfully unaware of my male privilege
* Have nothing to say that is of use in a conversation until I have completed pennance
Never worry, however. Even though MzNicky and Ghost of Adolph Russ (GOAR) have made some decent initial headway, they merely brushed past my skirmishers and are about to encounter the main line of resistance.
Tactical Response to GOAR:
Whoa. Check the hostility people. I just wanted to have an open and honest debate about the article. I didn't realize that failure to fall in lock-step with everyone else represented a capital offense.
Ghost of Adolph:
"Since you're not sensitive wrt ethnicity, why are there no "white" corners in the NFL? Are all the white kids, who play that position, just lazier than the African Americans who beat them out?"
Beats me, I don't follow sports. Sorry!
"How does every white person I know, know that Jessica Alba and Halle Berry are BLACK actresses"
Actually, last I checked, Jessica Alba 's father was of Mexican descent. As for what constitutes "BLACK," beats me. Apparently in your book it has something to do with being a Franco-Mexican. I don't make up the labels. They tend to just appear and I run with it. Sure, I suppose I could mix it up a little and call Halle Barry a Korean actress, but in the world we like to call the consensus reality, this makes no sense. (As an aside, I am well aware that there is a fascinating debate to be had on the issue of racial labeling and self-identification and the history thereof. I assume that is what you are getting at, but if you're going to accuse me of being a white supremacist without knowing anything about me, and conflate spittle-flecked doctrine with the spirit of open-ended inquiry and interpretation, well then you're just wasting my time.)
"How about Pollacks, oops, I'm sorry, I meant the politically correct version[...]Hitler didn't think so, but what about you?"
Ever hear of Godwin? He wants his law back (although usually, it takes more than a single post for the debate to jump the shark). In the meantime, you lose.
"You live in a fantasy world,"
Nonsense! Those unicorns are totally there, and you just can't see them because you're not special.
"Sometime, ask a car load of "brothers" for a ride into your lilly white suburbs."
I live in southeast DC and am damn near being the only white person in a 4-block radius. Check your assumptions, come up with a new batch of condescending, elitist, astroturfing nonsense (hopefully this time a little closer to the situation in reality), and try again.
Result: Initial blows blunted, ignorance of GOAR revealed regarding basic facts of life. His assumption regarding my "lilly white [sic]" background embarrasingly stopped dead in its tracks, and his outright laughable accusations of comparing me to Hitler demonstrate his own shrill polemics and inability to wage an argument without resorting to ad-hominems.
"No, dude, I hate to tell ya, but you're not "open-minded and liberal all that good stuff."
Damn. Now I've gone and had my liberal credentials and progressive merit badges yanked.
"That these two sentences occur in the same paragraph should provide for even the least-aware individual an insight into self-contradiction."
So in other words, debate on matters of subject interpretation is closed and any dissension from, discussion of, or otherwise questioning of an article of faith is enough to get my liberal badge and gun pulled until I agree to march lock-step with unquestioning fervor? That's not liberalism, miss. That's authoritarianism.
"Nez has clearly deconstructed the subliminal racism in this ad."
And while I am well aware of his/her points and understand the argument quite clearly, I am making a counter argument in the tradition of Edouard Said and arguing that when it comes to matters of subjective interpretation, we are each so influenced by our life experiences and cultural baggage that an objective analysis becomes fraught with difficulty (translation: while Nez's conclusion that the above ad represents an act of subliminal racism is extremely pertinent and valid, I would argue that this conclusion is not the ONLY conclusion there is to be had on the subject, nor is this the only interpretation available to us.)
"It's "veered away from the realm of material culture and into the field of art criticism"? What does that even mean?"
See above. If you prefer, I can send you a link to Wikipedia and you can look it up yourself.
"Are you actually equating the avaricious manipulations of ad agency hot-shots with art?"
FANTASTIC! Not only do you have the power to determine who is and is not a true "liberal," you also have been granted the power to make the distinctions between what is and is not art. BRAVO! (Seriously though, if you'd like to establish some baselines or a basic set of definitions as to what is and is not "art" for the purposes of facilitating our conversation, I'm game).
"And what do you mean by "material culture"? "
From the mighty WikiGod:
The term material culture refers both to the psychological role, the meaning, that all physical objects in the environment have to people in a particular culture and to the range of manufactured objects (techno-complex) that are typical within a socioculture and form an essential part of cultural identity.
As you can see, it's kind of relevant.
"The rest of your gibberish springs from your cherished position of obtuse white male privilege."
I just thought it came off as gibberish because you didn't understand it, didn't want to debate it, and generally were too lazy to take the 5 minutes out of your day to consider a dissenting opinion. If you want to conflate that with my cherished position of obtuse white male privilege, I certainly think its an interesting way of excusing laziness, but whatever. I'll let it slide.
"Until you realize that, you have nothing to say that's of use."
Yeah? E-mail me at email@example.com and we'll have ourselves a nice, civil conversation about television advertisements, potential interpretations, and their role in the establishment, modification, and influence on the social psyche and prevalent consensus reality. Or hell, just e-mail me to flame my ass. I don't care. And as a postscript, I'm sorry if this came off as harsh or dismissive (I intended the former, not the latter), I'm sorry. But when people make close-minded assumptions about who I am, where I live, and how I view the world based on a single, self-effacing dissent of a post, then it gets stuck in my craw. Be hearing from you!
Result: Blows blunted. Her inability to brook a dissenting opinion regarding a certain subject as well as her apparently gleeful lack of familiarity with the said subject brought to the forefront. As before, sad ignorance of my own personal life situation woefully misjudged. Her cherished position of keeper of the ledger with regards to what is or is not art and who is and is not liberal roundly mocked, as deserved. All the while I maintained a civil tone and made it clear that I was willing to engage her in regular, serious conversation if she so wished.
Tactical Situation 1200 hours: Assault stopped dead in tracks, both wings of opponent in full retreat.
Second Assault of the Day: Not content to let her spanking shut her up, MzNicky decided she wanted another round.
I don't need a grad student "translating" Said for me, thanks ever so much. Interesting how pretentious pricks such as yourself cherry-pick from actual writers' work and then pervert it to your own ends. And how unsurprising that you would lazily cite "Wikipedia" as a source. I never let my students get away with that. "Be hearing from" me? Don't hold your breath, kiddo. There are enough condescending twerps like you out and about as it is; I sure don't need to go seeking them out.
Compared to the first assault, this one was tame. She obviously wasn't expecting a backlash and this has obviously rattled her, as seen in her need to call me a "prick," as well as her condescending tome regarding "grad students" and her reference to herself as a teacher. Ah well, I almost feel bad about doing this. But she started it.
"I don't need a grad student "translating" Said for me, thanks ever so much. Interesting how pretentious pricks such as yourself cherry-pick from actual writers' work and then pervert it to your own ends."
Ouch. Have you ever actually read Said? I mean, the whole principle of Orientalism is that culturally constructed narratives can't be taken at face value due to the point of view and cultural baggage we each bring to the table. I was merely applying that to Nez's argument. Saying that I'm cherry-picking Said to prove my point is like accusing me of taking the whale in Moby Dick out of context when I say that it's a book about whaling. A+ for effort though. Ooooh, and you called me a "prick" too. How wonderful to see that unlike me in my obtuse white male privilege, you're enlightened enough to not use epithets which use bits of anatomy as stand-ins for gender-based insults (see: "pussy," "cunt," etc). What a mighty and enlightened feminist you are.
"And how unsurprising that you would lazily cite "Wikipedia" as a source."
Welcome to the world of irony. I hope you enjoy your stay.
"I never let my students get away with that."
People actually pay you to teach? AND you consider it a point of pride that you never let your students get away with using Wikipedia as a source? Congratulations. What do you teach? Fourth grade?
"Be hearing from" me? Don't hold your breath, kiddo.
Hey now. You're the one who claimed that I had nothing positive to add to the discussion.
"There are enough condescending twerps like you out and about as it is; I sure don't need to go seeking them out."
The person who single-handedly gets to decide who is and is not a liberal, which ideas are good and which are "gibberish," and what is and is not "art" is calling me a condescending twerp? That's probably the funniest thing to emerge for teh intertoobz since that video of the cat running in the giant hamster wheel. You have no ideas, no imagination, no tolerance for dissent, and no desire to engage in any form of useful dialogue. Fourth grade teacher sounds about right.
Tactical Situation 1400 Hours: Dust settles on the battlefield. At one point GOAR attempted to fight a rearguard action on the typically ham-brained notion that if he could somehow get me to agree that I determine what someone's race was based on a visual observation, this would somehow prove that I was a racist. Of course, the entire premise of his argument was that I was a racist scumbag and a stand-in for Adolph Hitler, which, while inaccurate, automatically made him lose the debate based on Godwin's Law of Argumentation (first person to compare his opponent to Adolph Hitler loses).
As such, while he did do a very good job of getting me to "admit" that I identify and classify people by race visually, his celebratory w00ts! of victory quickly spiraled into the drain of irrelevance, and he was left with nothing to say, except for the basic implication that I talk about and think about race and am therefore a racist while he...isn't...somehow...
Ah well. Victory is mine! After dinner, I will drink my celebratory glass of mead out of the shrunken and pitch-coated head of the undoubtably ugly lesbian Mznicky, because while I certainly don't use ad-hominems against people during the course of an argument, I certainly see no cause to desist afterwards. Tamerlane, here I come!
I will make you hurt...
In short, I really did mean to bring you a Renew America column this time around. However, by clicking on one of the links provided on their front page, I was immediately whisked away to Joe Farah's equally assinine (though oftentimes less humorous) clone of Alan Keyes' wastepaper basket.
In any case, since my piece on cheap Mexican abortions was such a hit last time, I figured we'd tap this pony again, because it's Friday, and I'm unoriginal. Today's author and winner of the Terri Schiavo look-alike contest (post-coma) is Jill Stanek. According to her official blurb, she was invited by President Bush to the signing of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act in 2002, ostensibly to witness the signing. I also suspect that her secondary role was to serve as a useful on-hand prop to prove that just because babies can be born without brains does not mean they are incapable of writing conservative columns later in life.
Any way, let's get this one rolling.
Promoters call it the Freedom of Choice Act, which is actually true.
Oh gawd, here we go. Jill, you cannot, I repeat, CANNOT begin with a snarky, dismissive quote about something you don't like without first beginning with a little expository paragraph and explaining what the hell "it" is and why it deserves your scorn. I understand that you may be struggling to come up with a good hook, and while the elements are kinda sorta there, you have only so far established three things: 1) that there is something called the "Freedom of Choice Act," 2) like films, boxers, and concerts orchestras, it has promoters, and 3) that you're a really shitty writer. Moving on.
If passed, it would retroactively and forever free the abortion industry to infinity and beyond[...]
Apparently, this Freedom of Choice Act is worse than we thought. Someone better call Buzz Lightyear and Star Command.
"We don't do abortions on my planet. We prefer exposing them to the elements."
Jill, pro-aborts isn't catchy, alliterated, convincing, or particularly sneering. I might just as easily call you Ant-aborts, which at the very least has the advantage of a nice ring to it, as well as the fact that it could lead to all sorts of jokes and double-entendres at your expense. After all, I know it's been a while since people made fun of you in the playground, knocked over your cafeteria tray, and made a big deal about scoring the last box of chocolate milk right from under neath your nose, but do you really need a new nickname that badly? Because I can very easily see Jill "Antaborts" Stanek working its way into the naitonal lexicon.
[...] reintroduced FOCA[...]
At the FOCA, FOCA cabana, they mix the best abortion pills with your pina colada...
[...] immediately following the Supreme Court's April 18 decision upholding the Partial Birth Abortion Ban with expressions of financial panic not seen since the stock market crashed in 1929.
"They banned partial-borth abortion? SHIT! Now where is KFC supposed to get its chicken tenders? I'm ruined!"
Pro-lifers have aborted FOCA several times since the 1980s, but terrified pro-abortion politicians and abortion-industry thugs fearing for their deathlihood seized on the Supreme partial-birth abortion decision to attempt a do-over.
Gah! Just...just...gah! What the fuck is she even trying to SAY?? It's like someone performed a dilation and extraction on her brain!
Public relations aficionados that they are, Planned Parenthood and other industry leeches reassured us in press statements they intended not just to rescue partial-birth abortion for America but also every other equally "seismic" and "grim" Supreme Court anti-abortion decision that might be made ever after.
Auditory hallucinations are a hallmark of schizophrenia: 50 to 75 percent of the 2.8 million Americans who suffer from the illness hear voices that are not there. ~ NAMI-SSC
Doug Johnson of National Right to Life called FOCA the Freedom for Partial-Birth Abortionists Act, which is catchy.
If by catchy you mean "couldn't be catched with a catchy looking catch-mitt by Catch "Catcher" McCatchy, winner of last year's All-American 'Catch Yourself a Catchy Catch' competition on Nation Catch the Caught Day," then yes. It certainly is.
FOCA would kill every abortion law in the land the Supreme Court has rendered constitutional under Roe and pre-emptively strike any pro-life law ever to follow.
Interestingly enough, I though it was the position of the antaborts that the Supreme Court's job is to rule on the constitutionality of laws, not legistlate from the bench. But I guess that's part of a pre-9/11 worldview.
FOCA would wipe out every parental notification and consent law, every informed consent law, every law restricting government funding of abortion, every law prohibiting abortions in public hospitals, every law mandating waiting periods, every medical professional conscience clause law, every abortion clinic regulation, every law stating abortion procedures must only be committed by physicians, and more. Pro-life politicians would even be prohibited from giving pro-life speeches.
In order to fully appreciate the sinister tone of this paragraph, I will provide you with the appropriate soundtrack. Sit tight.
Under FOCA, mothers on their way to abortions would no longer have to obey traffic signals. Family and friends would be forbidden to suggest the other a-word – adoption – out loud. Phone companies could be sued for lightning storms that rendered phones useless when a mother tried to make an abortion appointment.
OK, I added those last three. But you get the point.
The point in question of course being that Jill makes shit up all the time. Moving on...
Under FOCA, no abortion procedure could be touched with a 10-foot legal crochet hook.
Or strategically bent and twisted coathanger. See where we're going here?
Obviously, FOCA would reverse the partial-birth decision and "enshrine," as NOW president Kim Gandy phrased it, every other abortion procedure under the moonless sky.
Okay, now this has gone on so long, I've started to lose my point of reference. I hope this ends soon.
This would have to include Everything Delivered But The Big Toe Abortions, which Sen. Barbara Boxer infamously refused to say should be illegal during an enlightening exchange with then-Sen. Rick Santorum on the Senate floor in 1999.
"Everything Delivered But The Big Toe Abortions"? Yeah...that's got Santorum's fingerprints all over it. That's almost as good as the "Almost Entirely Delivered Except For His Last Treeclimbing Claw Because You've Just Given Birth To A Wookie Abortions" legistlation he introduced his first day in office.
FOCA states that prior to legalized abortion "an estimated 1.2 million women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions, despite the risk of unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration and death." Hmm. Kermit D. Frog moment. I wouldn't want to accuse the abortion industry of inflating numbers for their own gain, but I'm having trouble comprehending how a population of 200 million in 1970 could render 1.2 million illegal abortions when a population of 300 million in 2006 rendered 1.3 million legal abortions. It's kinda like when legislators make it easier to get concealed carry permits in their districts, and then the crime rate doesn't go down. In essence, the law has no effect on the incidence of a social indicator, it merely changes the terms under which that social indicator operates. Honestly, I can't help but wonder if Jill tries to open up her tube of toothpaste by screwing it the opposite way when she's in the southern Hemisphere. As for "unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration and death" pre-Roe, surely pro-aborts are not implying anything has changed. I'm forced to wonder if they've been trying to get high off their own suction machines. My suction machine is yo' mamma! (Yeah, I know that's crude and pointless, but I'm about at the end of my rope here). In the classic rock band satire movie "This is Spinal Tap," Nigel explained to Marty how his band's amplifiers went one notch above the standard "10." "If we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?" asked Nigel. "Put it up to 11," answered Marty. "Eleven. Exactly," responded Nigel. "One louder." In America, abortion has already pushed millions over the cliff. FOCA would force abortion on us "one louder." Um. I think that's all there is to be said. Vote antabort in '08 or the terrorists win Spinal Tap will abort your baby with its guitar amp on stage!
FOCA states that prior to legalized abortion "an estimated 1.2 million women each year were forced to resort to illegal abortions, despite the risk of unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration and death."
Kermit D. Frog moment.
I wouldn't want to accuse the abortion industry of inflating numbers for their own gain, but I'm having trouble comprehending how a population of 200 million in 1970 could render 1.2 million illegal abortions when a population of 300 million in 2006 rendered 1.3 million legal abortions.
It's kinda like when legislators make it easier to get concealed carry permits in their districts, and then the crime rate doesn't go down. In essence, the law has no effect on the incidence of a social indicator, it merely changes the terms under which that social indicator operates.
Honestly, I can't help but wonder if Jill tries to open up her tube of toothpaste by screwing it the opposite way when she's in the southern Hemisphere.
As for "unsanitary conditions, incompetent treatment, infection, hemorrhage, disfiguration and death" pre-Roe, surely pro-aborts are not implying anything has changed. I'm forced to wonder if they've been trying to get high off their own suction machines.
My suction machine is yo' mamma! (Yeah, I know that's crude and pointless, but I'm about at the end of my rope here).
In the classic rock band satire movie "This is Spinal Tap," Nigel explained to Marty how his band's amplifiers went one notch above the standard "10."
"If we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?" asked Nigel.
"Put it up to 11," answered Marty.
"Eleven. Exactly," responded Nigel. "One louder."
In America, abortion has already pushed millions over the cliff. FOCA would force abortion on us "one louder."
Um. I think that's all there is to be said.
Vote antabort in '08 or the terrorists win Spinal Tap will abort your baby with its guitar amp on stage!
Since the massacre of 32 students and teachers at Virginia Tech, the mainstream media have obsessed over the fact the crazed gunman was able to buy a Glock in the state of Virginia.
Because, in the words of John Stuart, "only a sicko would try to use the Virginia Tech massacre to win an argument about the availability of firearms in this country."
Little attention has been paid to the Richmond legislators who voted to make "Hokie Nation," a Middle American campus of 26,000 kids, a gun-free zone where only the madman had a semi-automatic.
Touche. Having recently graduated from college and in light of the fact that I will be returning to grad school in the fall, I think I have a special interest in such matters. But Pat? Please. You want to reverse a law that would allow people like these from keeping guns in their dorm rooms? C'mon...
Almost no attention has been paid to the fact that Cho Seung-Hui was not an American at all, but an immigrant, an alien.
Hell, Pat remembers the good old days when the only people who had names like that were ironing his shirts at a company store in Deadwood, but let's not belabor the point. I totally agree that the "yellow menace" angle has been downplayed here, and that were it not for Pat's fearless investigative reporting, your average American might be under the impression that Cho Seung-Hui was not, in fact, a White Anglo Saxon Protestant from Cedar Rapids, Iowa. </irony>
Had this deranged young man who secretly hated us never come here, 32 people would be heading home from Blacksburg for summer vacation.
In fact, his hatred was so secret and so passionate that even the mandatory psychiatric evaluation he was ordered to undergo and the violent plays and papers he had written gave us no clue as to what might have happened down the road.
Cho was among the 864,000 Koreans here as a result of the Immigration Act of 1965, which threw the nation's doors open to the greatest invasion in history, an invasion opposed by a majority of our people.
"Verily, when the Koreans saw the standard of Seoul on land, and the galley of their lord touching ground before them, each held himself for shamed, and they all [...]leapt forth, and landed. Then might you have seen an assault, great and marvellous; and to this bears witness Geoffry of Villehardouin, who makes this book, that more than forty people told him for sooth that they saw the standard of Seoul at the top of one of the Space Needle, and that no man knew who bore it thither." Although in retrospect, the Mongol Invasions and the Germanic Peoples Migrations were pretty impressive too.
Thirty-six million, almost all from countries whose peoples have never fully assimilated in any Western country, now live in our midst.
Translation: Once they got rid of the Asian Exclusion Act of 1924, it was all downhill from there.
Cho was one of them.
In stories about him, we learn he had no friends, rarely spoke and was a loner, isolated from classmates and roommates.In other words, your typical Applied Sciences student.
What happened in Blacksburg cannot be divorced from what's been happening to America since the immigration act brought tens of millions of strangers to these shores, even as the old bonds of national community began to disintegrate and dissolve in the social revolutions of the 1960s.
With tens of millions of immigrants at 30-odd victims each...well, I will let you draw your own conclusions. We have a crisis, people!
To intellectuals, what makes America a nation is ideas – ideas in the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, Gettysburg Address and Dr. King's "I Have a Dream" speech.
Heh. Liberals think they have rights because a piece of paper says so. How quaint. And pre-9/11.
But documents no matter how eloquent and words no matter how lovely do not a nation make. Before 1970, we were a people, a community, a country. Students would have said aloud of Cho: "Who is this guy? What's the matter with him?"
And why are we talking about a guy who won't be born for another 15 or 20 years? Cue theme music.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
Thursday Morning Comedy Hour
Anyway, today's column is from perennial favorite Erik D. Rush, Fox News' affirmative action attack candidate who despite being batshit crazy and chronically ill-informed, finds his obliviousness to his surroundings matched only by his willingness to take a hatchet to other black leaders with whom the right disagrees (in short, everyone except Clarence Thomas, Alan Keyes, Condi Rice, and the 2% or so of the black population that had a positive opinion of W. in the weeks following Hurricane Katrina).
While researching a story about a city council race for a local newspaper, I came across one of the most disturbing and disgusting phenomena I’ve yet seen come onto the scene in American politics.
And remember folks. This is the guy who said that, in retrospect, Pat Robertson was right in calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez.
We all know about the parade of far-Left freaks that includes MoveOn.org, George Soros, Peter Lewis, David Geffen and their ilk, who are using their vast resources to propagandize the American public into voting us incrementally toward being a morally bankrupt, internationally castrated nation.
As I always suspected. It's not just that the Commiedhimmieliberalnazicrats want to force us into being immoral, but it's their propensity for wiener-whacking which is especially troublesome.
We’ve heard the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) referred to as “the most dangerous organization in America” due to its support for nearly everything evil.
Granted when you heard it, you were probably drunk off your ass in some anonymous biker bar on the other side of town, so you're reasonably sure you don't have to worry about bumping anyone who heard your subsequent 15-minute-long tirade against the ACLU and their perfidious attempts to suck away your precious bodily fluids around the office water cooler.
And yes, I realize that I am perhaps being unreasonably charitable in suggesting that Rush actually interacts with other human beings in an office-like setting, instead of occasionally hurling feces-smeared manuscripts at his handlers during his semi-annual cage cleaning. Call it artistic licence.
Well, I think I may have discovered the second most dangerous organization in America.
If you think he's referring to the KKK, Posse Comitatus, the Phineas Preisthood, the Michigan Militia, the Animal/Earth Liberation Front, or the World Church of the Creator/Creativity Movement, you would be...well..you know...
I’m referring to the Washington-based organization Progressive Majority, a lobbying group dedicated to:
“…identifying and recruiting the best progressive leaders to run for office; coaching and supporting their candidacies by providing strategic message, campaign, and technical support; prioritizing the recruitment and election of candidates of color; and bringing new people into the political process at all levels.
In other words, the most dangerous group in America is not a group of shadowy, paranoid, armed-to-the-teeth radicals who intend, plan and execute acts of violence in the name of a murky, cult-like ideology. Nope. The "most dangerous group in America" is a liberal advocacy movement which seeks to support progressive candidates, especially those of color. Yeah, considering Rush's readership, I'd say that's about right.
▪ Identifying every electoral opportunity
▪ Recruiting the best progressive leaders to run
▪ Training candidates and staff to win
▪ Providing state of the art political support
▪ Helping them become effective leaders once elected.
“…We build locally to win nationally.”
You know, I'll say this for Osama bin Laden. While he hates democracy and all it stands for (much like Erik Rush), at least he can grasp the fundamental logic upon which the concept is built. People with different opinions on different matters come together to resolve their differences via the magic of the voting booth. For Bin Laden, Liberalism is merely the flip side of the same democratic coin- one which he wishes to see eliminated. For Erik Rush, it's a perversion of the greatest order and a threat of the largest magnitude, because both sides of the coin should (in his book anyway) say the same thing. Le plus ca change...
heir agenda – the Progressive agenda – includes well-spun catch phrases that translate into[...]
Oooh, well-spun catch phrases? Let's see if I can identify them.
"One man, one vote!" "Votes for women!" "Equal pay for equal work!" and "Black or white, unite and fight!"
"Out, out! Vile blastocyst!"
"iViva la Raza!"
affirmative action on methamphetamine[...]
Um, this one is just wierd. I think it's a transcription error.
economy-stultifying environmentalist zealotry[...]
Boy, that's a mouthful. Um, "Save the Whales!"?
and more pliant, radical Cynthia McKinney and Charlie Rangel types in Congress.
Hey, wait a minute. There are no wel-spun catch phrases that translate into McKinney and Rangel. What kinda stunt are you trying to pull here, Rangel? But while we're at it, uh..."Vote McKinney, she's phat, not skinny!"
Their president, Gloria Totten, “has worked for progressive causes"[...] and is also President of the Board of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center – all far-Left political advocacy outfits.
Hah! You see? That's the thing about liberals. Oh sure, they claim they're all inclusive, but check it out: their president is a screaming liberal! What more proof do you need?
When you cut through Progressive Majority’s Coke commercial website and the altruistic claptrap, what you have is an organization dedicated to the stealth placement of “acceptable” candidates throughout a sleeping citizenry – at every level of government.
Holy shit. I think Erik's about to blow this case wide open. That despite claiming to be a liberal group dedicated to the advancement of progressive campaigns and candidates, they are in fact dedicated to the "stealth" placement of candidates throughout a sleeping citizenry, presumably by using their mass-hypnotic mind-control antenna located deep within the Washington forests.
If this is sounding more than a little alarmist or conspiratorial to you, it's because it is. In addition to claiming that Pat Robertson was right in calling for the assassination of Hugo Chavez, Erik Rush also claimed that Barack Obama's church was essentially a cult-like front for a black supremacist agenda- evidence he uncovered while pounding the cyber pavement and interviewing cyber witnesses like the good cyber journalist he is...by spending 15 minutes in front of Google.
Perhaps what troubled Erik Rush the most about Barack Obama's church was its 10-point "Black Value system," which included such items as "A Commitment to the Black Community" and "A Commitment to the Black Work Ethic." Then again, given Rush's own status as Fox News' token go-to guy whenever a minority candidate needs to be criticized, I can see why this would be troubling to him.
Americans need to recognize what a dangerous precedent this is, and what politics has become in America.
Grass-roots groups organizing to advance their political causes. Truly, not even in the darkest days of WWII did the Nazis present such an insiduous threat to our freedom.
Turning over local government to operatives for national lobbyists – of any political stripe – poses the specter of a government in which the individual’s vote is effectively nullified. According to Progressive Majority’s stated mission, Americans from local to national levels will be governed by agenda-driven lobbyists in Washington, D.C. rather than locally concerned members of their communities.
Because if there's one thing we know about local politics, its that it has nothing to do with party affiliation, nor the currents emanating from Washington. Besides, there are 3077 counties and parishes in the United States. If you are honestly worried that the race for neighborhood dog catcher is being controlled by a shadowy (non-profit) cartel in Washington, well, it's time to call the pharmacy and have your prescription renewed.
Hey Erik, want to worry about something useful for a change? How about the fact that 80 to 90% of American news media (and virtually 100% of all TV news media) is owned by a handful of for-profit corporations who effectively filter and control what is and is not reported? Or the fact that Regent Law School, founded by Pat Robertson and only accredited by the American Bar Association in 1996 has had over 150 alumni hired for federal government positions in the Bush Administration since 2001? Or that Exxon Mobile recently offered up to $10,000 to individual scientists and economists in exchange for their disavowal of Global Warming? Those items seem far more troubling with regards to the hijacking of political discourse in this nation than the fear that a non-profit, grassroots group says in their statement of purpose that they plan on identifying progressive candidates for every race out there. But then again, I've never been on Fox News.
It is time to step up our engagement in the Culture War.
I personally plan on filling an oil drum with styrofoam and setting it on fire. You know, because global warming is bunk and because I can.
Make no mistake: This brand of Progressives aren’t ‘Sixties liberals or misled Left-leaning Democrats[...]
You read that right, ladies and gentlemen. Today's liberals are officially worse than the Dirty Hippies(tm) of the 1960s...
they are amoral socialists who intend to transform America into a cross between Amsterdam and San Francisco.
It will be like Bullet. Only the gays will probably force each other to get pregnant every once in a while just so they can keep the great tradition of unfettered abortion alive. And they'll all be speaking Dutch.What I want to know is: Haven’t we seen enough of the Progressive movement’s results to know that their agenda is social and national suicide?
It's kind of hard to be lecturing others on the agenda of social and national suicide when you're starting a $9 trillion deficit in the face, Erik. Not to mention or or two other items...
The “progress” they’ve advocated over the last 40 years has been the direct cause of[...]
Oh boy, here we go again. Another game of charades. But after this, you need to put the word processor away Erik, and get to work on your homework, ok? A deal is a deal.
the culture of dependency and mediocrity amongst poor and minority individuals,
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and all the other programs that help ensure we don't have thousands of people living in shacks and starving to death in public parks.
the dissolution of the American family,
Umm...legalized divorce? The Eisenhower administration? Satanism?
an industry of black market fetus parts,
Definitely Satanism here.
widespread moral ambivalence, early sexualization of children, an epidemic of child rape (and occasionally murder),
But it's so fun when we do it on the X-Box (especially once you have that bootleg "Child Rape and Murder Patch" uploaded and installed off the internet)
nascent religious persecution,
I.e. Churches can't tell you how to vote without risking their tax-exempt status
weak foreign policies which served to embolden our enemies,
Like the Camp David Accords, authorizing the capture of assassination of Osama bin Laden, or the intervention in the Balkans and Kosovo
and apathetic or even disdainful attitudes amongst Americans toward our sovereignty and the nation itself.
Liberal Democrat (LIB-ur-ul dem-O-krat), n.: Someone who hates freedom, the nation-state, Jesus, and possibly fetuses (unless sold on the black market).
The choice: Americans, and Conservatives in particular can wake up and vigorously counter this blight, or we can start considering where we’re going to put our red light districts and when we’ll celebrate Gay Porn Day, which was recently signed onto the books in San Francisco.
A Gay Porn Day? Those fuckers get to have all the fun. It's discrimination I tell you! I'll tell you one thing though, pal. You may have your Gay Porn Day, but us heterosexuals have us a Straight Porn Week. It's called Spring Break and it's coming to a city near you (assuming you live in LA, Miami, Daytona Beach, and Mexico).
In any case, congratulations Erik Rush. You have done it again. You have taken a boring, ordinary Thursday and filled it up to the brim with the best, most-godawfully brilliant insanity this side of a David Lynch acid trip. I salute you!
Join us next week for Erik's most explosive, insightful and provocative column yet, "The Most Obscene Person in the Nation," in which he identifies the driver of a green 1998 Subaru Forrester with a "Buck Fush" bumper sticker as the vilest, most profane peddler of filth in the Western Hemisphere.
HOLY SHIT! This guy has a book out in which he actually claims the best way to solve America's illegal immigration problem is to annex Mexico. Hey Erik, I got a tiny little problem for ya. Latin America doesn't stop with Mexico. Nope, it goes all the way down until you hit England. Typical, Erik. You're a good guy, but your ideas just aren't BIG enough!
I know what my next Amazon purchase will be...
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Huzzah for Stephen!
Stephen Colbert is Time Magazine's #1 Most Influential Person In America
From the "Cons" section of his profile: "His performance at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association dinner stirred controversy, raising concerns over the biased nature of his satire."
People, the guy is a FUCKING COMEDIAN. Conservatives are by far and large completely incapable of self-mockery and satire, the two key ingredients for being a successful comedian. Oh sure, there have been some pretty funny comedians who also happen to be conservative or libertarian (such as the South Park gang and I believe Drew Carry), but they are by far and large a minority and (very wisely) tend to stay the fuck away from overt political satire. Why? Because in the words of a friend of mine, conservative humor really just consists of their talking points with a laugh track added in. Remove the set and the canned laughter, and all you have is pretty much the same stuff you had before: "humor" that is clumsy, obvious and vindictive.
Not to mention the bullshit complain that Colbert is "biased." People, Republicans control the White House, the Supreme Court, and -until recently- Congress. In those 6 years they gave us over 3,000 American dead in Iraq (without the WMDs), Hurricane Katrina, a Nuclear North Korea, a $9 TRILLION deficit, surging gas prices, skyrocketing prescription drug bills, a plan to "fix" Social Security, a withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol, torture, a suspension of Habeas Corpus, warrantless searches and wiretaps, an attempt to gut PBS for being "too liberal," bought reporters to pimp their talking points, exposed the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame, the Walter Reed scandal, and dozens, dozens more.
So let me ask you. What on earth have the Democrats done to deserve "equal treatment?"
From the department of dum, dum dum dum, dum....
Don Imus, recently unemployed pioneer of the high-dollar "shock-jock" industry, is a truly gifted man. He has the rare but unenviable ability to really tick people off at both ends of the political spectrum and everywhere in between.
Agreed. We on The Left(tm) don't like him because he's a living, breathing example of the foul-mouthed bigotry for which people have gotten a free pass on provided they wrote it off as a joke (see Coulter, Ann, keyword search: Edwards, Faggot, Stevens, Supreme Court, Rat Poison, NYT Building, 9/11 Hijackers). People on the right don't like him, well...because even though he's very good at stroking and caressing the lizard brain of the American right, he doesn't consistently STFU whenever an embarrassing story regarding the administration leaks to the fore. More on that in a minute.
To the chagrin of the leftist anti-war "you baby killer" crowd, he's been a staunch defender of our wounded troops at Walter Reed.
Um...let's try that again. I think my eyeballs exploded.
To the chagrin of the leftist anti-war "you baby killer" crowd, he's been a staunch defender of our wounded troops at Walter Reed.
Once more, with feeling!
To the chagrin of the leftist anti-war "you baby killer" crowd, he's been a staunch defender of our wounded troops at Walter Reed.
This is perhaps, in all my years dissecting and analizing wingnut prose, one of the singularly, most comprehensively, catastrophically retarded statements in the history of mankind. And believe me, I get to hear quite a bit about it.
To comprehensively and completely cover all the various angles, dimensions and planes in which this statement is mind-over matteringly, jaw-droppingly, seizure-inducingly bad, let's just take the following three statements in no particular order.
In case you're wondering what constitutes a staunch, conservative defense of our wounded troops at Walter Reed, take a gander:
Lt. General Kevin C. Kiley: "This is not a horrific, catastrophic failure at Walter Reed."
Jonah Goldberg (quoting an anonymous marine): "Having served at Bethesda and Walter Reed, I was not a big fan of the
WaPo articles. Would you believe that about 5% of the Marines we had complained endlessly about their treatment? Well I think the WaPo found almost all of them. One of the Marines interviewed in the article was given almost everything possible."
Jean Schmidt (R-OH): "While I believe that this building is beneath the standard of what is acceptable, I think it is wrong to suggest that mold found behind an air conditioner somehow is an excuse to say that all of our veterans are receiving substandard medical care[...] It is important to remember that the building in question is an apartment building, not a medical facility. Further the building was scheduled to be torn down within two years.''
A chart from Jesus' General indicating the number of times the term "Walter Reed" appears in several conservative blogs:
And of course, what did the "you baby killer" crowd have to say about it?
John Stewart: We have received word that many hundreds of American troops are being held in deplorable, squalid conditions. What kind of people would treat our soldiers in this horrible manner? Funny story…turns out it's us."
Heh. I'd laugh, if it didn't hurt so much.