Archive for January 19th, 2008

Bill O’Reilly Was Right!

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Bill O’Reilly, explaining that the 200,000 homeless veterans are addicts or mentally ill rather than poor:

[A]ccording to the government census, poor households in America have lots of stuff. 97 percent have a color TV, 78 percent a DVD player, 80 percent an air conditioner, 73 percent a car or truck, 63 percent cable or satellite TV, and 43 percent of poor households in the USA own the home they are living in.

So if the poor are not destitute in America, and they obviously are not, why are so many veterans sleeping under bridges, John Edwards? The answer again they’re mostly addicted or mentally ill. It has nothing to do with the economy.

Fox News commentator Andrew Napolitano, explaining why he left his $100,000-a-year position on the NJ Superior Court:

I really was tired of being poor.

Apparently the Republican definition of “poor” is a little bit different from ours.

(h/t Caro Kay of Make Them Accountable)

5 comments January 19th, 2008 at 08:32pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Media,Republicans,Wankers

Be Afraid. Be Very Afraid.

From Pharyngula, by way of fourlegsgood, the Fundies Say The Darnedest Things Top 100. Some of the quotes are almost certainly parody, but it’s not easy to be sure which. My personal Top 25 (more or less):

o No, everyone is born Christian. Only later in life do people choose to stray from Jesus and worship satan instead. Atheists have the greatest “cover” of all, they insist they believe in no god yet most polls done and the latest research indicates that they are actually a different sect of Muslims.

o Gravity: Doesn’t exist. If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them. Or the space shuttle in space should have the astronauts orbiting it. Of course, that’s just the tip of the gravity myth. Think about it. Scientists want us to believe that the sun has a gravitation pull strong enough to keep a planet like neptune or pluto in orbit, but then it’s not strong enough to keep the moon in orbit? Why is that? What I believe is going on here is this: These objects in space have yet to receive mans touch, and thus have no sin to weigh them down. This isn’t the case for earth, where we see the impact of transfered sin to material objects. The more sin, the heavier something is.

o I am a bit troubled. I believe my son has a girlfriend, because she left a dirty magazine with men in it under his bed. My son is only 16 and I really don’t think he’s ready to date yet. What’s worse is that he’s sneaking some girl to his room behind my back. I need help, God! I want my son to stop being so secretive!

o The word of God has been in heaven forever. The KJV has always been there. The so called Hebrew words like Alleluia are English words. The English did not borrow them from the Hebrew but rather the Hebrew borrowed them from the English. If the KJV has always been there and is the original word of God then there is no other conclusion. The same can be said for any so called Greek words that were borrowed from the Greek or transliterated. It is a matter of what bias you approach this particular subject.

o [Replying to ‘as for not seeing evolution it takes several million years… incase you missed that memo…’]

several million years for a monkey to turn into a man. oh wait thats right. monkeys dont live several million years.

o If u have sex before marriage then in Gods eyes u are married to that person if a man rapes a woman in Gods eyes they are married it sucks for the girl but what can we do lol

o How can anyone beleive we evolved from monkeys heres a few questions for people who beleive that

1.If we did evolve from monkeys then how come babies arent born monkeys

(…)

4.how come we cant speak monkey

o [Talking about an eleven year old girl who was raped and then buried alive]

god was sacrificing this child as a way to show others the light. much as he did his own child. what a beautiful gift he has given us.

o Make sure your answer uses Scripture, not logic.

o A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However he should not penetrate, sodomising the child is OK. If the man penetrates and damages the child then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however does not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister.

o To say the Bible was written by men and may contain inaccuracies completely contradicts the word of the Bible.

o Me and like-minded Christian students are trying to organize a mock stoning of openly gay students at our campus. We will be using crumpled up gray/brown construction paper to represent rocks, and will recite bible verses in opposition to their sinful nature. We will throw a volley or two of these “rocks” at every Gay person we happen to encounter that day.

o Apes are just creatures twisted by Satan to mock Jesus by giving EVILolition credibility. Further more they are naturally lust crazed for human women. Since they are not natural creatures they should be exterminated forthwith as the tools of evil they are.

o Everyone knows scientists insist on using complex terminology to make it harder for True Christians to refute their claims.

Deoxyribonucleic Acid, for example… sounds impressive, right? But have you ever seen what happens if you put something in acid? It dissolves! If we had all this acid in our cells, we’d all dissolve! So much for the Theory of Evolution, Check MATE!

o Constants seldom are … pi changes depending upon the strength of the gravitational field involved.

o …I know that some of the times when I was right in the very act of looking at, not pornography, but lingerie ads or some of those things, my wife would run down the stairs because she had just had a dream where she’s being chased by Satan and she couldn’t find me in the dream to protect her. I really think that the effects of my sin were causing my protection to be taken off of her.

o all the evolutionists, tell me something. i know how the big bang “has happened, but tell me, wouldnt an explosion, especially one that size, take away life instead of allow it? think about it.

ex: the a-bomb, the h-bomb, grenades, cannon balls (when fired from a cannon of course), mines, rocket launchers, and anything and everything in between. they all have taken lives.

o What do the other human persons here think ?

No doubt someone will object, saying something obviously ridiculous like, but atheists are persons.

But clearly this is mistaken because anybody without a well developed belief in God is obviously not a full human person.

What could be more obvious than that ?

How many full human persons do you know without a well developed belief in God. Obviously none, because if they were full human person they would have a well developed belief in God.

Now some people might object to killing atheists for there (and obviously it is there and not thier as they are not whos but whats ) organs but think of all the full human persons that would benifit from the organs and the medical research that could be done on these non-persons.

How could anybody object, they are not human persons and if you think we should not kill them then that is just because of out dated ideas and because they must really just want people to suffer. For shame on you !

So what do people think ?

Should we kill these atheist human non-persons for the benifit of fully human persons ?

o so you think if no one believed in any religion there would be no wars or fighting? i think it would be worse. i know if i didn’t fear god’s judgement i would have killed many many times.

o All elements in the universe (periodic table) get their properties based on their combinations of 3 specific sub-atomic components. Protons, Neutrons, & Electrons. No element has the same combination. (ie…Gold has 79 protons, 118 neutrons, 79 electrons)Carbon (man) has 6 protons, 6 neutrons, 6 electrons. [666]. This will be the number in which the Anti-Christ will be identified by. And because a clone does not have working sexual organs, this explains why a “cloned” Anti-Christ will not have need for a woman.

o I am 100% pro-life, unless we’re talking about capital punishment, in which case I am 100% pro-death.

o No one knows what’s happening until the flood comes (according to Matthew). And the flood is here – it refers to the apocalypse. There is a huge amount of supporting evidence on the site. For example, there is evidence for the wh0re of Babylon due to a 666 mile long penis in Mexico.

o I’m not talking about a simple power outage. I’m talking about enriched plutonium which comes from the conversion of uranium into WMD. It is considered the most dangerous substance known to man and absolutely will shut off the electricity present in planes. All any terrorist has to do is drop large quantities of plutonium from airplanes onto American soil and it will render electricity completely useless. And the chain reaction that will occur from the US shutting down will be global. We Americans have had the capacity to do that to our enemies for years. I had erroneoulsy thought that atheists knew that since they claim to know so much about our universe.

o Don’t you know that evolution is basically a racist concept? Some evolutionists still teach that white people evolved from “negroes” who evolved from apes– Meaning “white people are more evolved!”

o According to evolutionists, it’s a fact that aliens ruled the planet before the dinosaurs because that can’t be disproven.

We have deformed skulls to prove that these aliens once had ape-like foreheads, and some walked on 2 legs and others walked on 4 legs. And since there have been confirmed sightings of alien spacecraft, that proves that they have come back to check on how things are going on planet earth.

We don’t know who the first alien was, but from the few skulls and bones we have, we can tell that there were millions of them. Then when they had explored planet earth, they found it boring and decided to leave but not before some of them had died here which is why we still have their skulls and bones. From them, we can tell what they wore, what color eyes they had, and that they were covered in hair. These are what evolutionists call facts, so we’ve proven that aliens once ruled the planet earth.

o Masturbation can sometimes be wrong and it can sometimes not. If you masturbate thinking about how pretty the flowers are and how you want a puppy, essentially that’s not wrong. But most times, that is not the case. I believe that when one masturbates a high percentage of the time they are fantasizing about a sexual partner therefore making masturbation lust. Lust, as the Bible states, is a sin. But masturbation is something that people in general should stay away from because it’s hard not to lust whilst doing it.

And finally, I apologize for the length, but this was just too crazy to leave out (I have attempted to insert paragraphs to make it semi-readable):

Just imagine vast fields of our sisters in Christ — sisters brain damaged and comatosed, never to mentally return to this Earth full of sin — inserted into pods that are themselves connected to a myriad of wires and hydraulic tubes (I know, it sounds exactly like the Matrix, and I freely admit, although it’s certainly a very evil movie, some of the imagery is inspiring and inspired this post).

The pods will be the most comfortable places on Earth, playing soothing music like Bible hymns and Mozart, their insides like a massage chair and covered in silk. A few intruding wires and tubes will, of course, have to connect to the women inside the pods to monitor their temperature and overall health, as well as the babies’ of those that are pregnant.

And of course there will be one tube reserved for the insertion of a man’s seed whenever the women are at their most fertile. And only the best semen will be used.

I haven’t quite settled on a selection process yet, but I’m thinking some sort of Christian council could perhaps vote on the man who is honorable and moral enough to breed generations of these children. Perhaps one man won’t be enough, for a little bit of diversity is always good. We should, therefore, most likely have a multitude of different men, one of each race.

When the children are born, they can be sent off to special adoption centers, where they can be delivered to good Christian parents who are unable to themselves breed. Those that may be left over can be raised in God, brought up in Christian schools, where prayers are said thrice daily (at least), and in the summer, they can be sent to Jesus camp. If the schools are as good as I envision, then these children will make the perfect leaders for our future.

But not just leaders, for if this idea is near as good as I am thinking, we will breed enough of these children to one day make up a huge percentage of our population, such that they can elect only the most Christian of people to the government. So even those that are not the brightest and best can contribute to God in some way.

Wow. Just wow. I also like the commenters who think they’ve come up with a brilliant, conversation-ending counterargument, like the one about DNA being acid, or the one about the Big Bang being an explosion, or the one about monkeys not living for several million years. They run rings ’round us logically.

January 19th, 2008 at 06:50pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Favorites,Religion,Weirdness

Changiness & Journalimism

Yeah, Matt Taibbi is a scab and kind of a jerk sometimes, and he seems to bear some deep personal grudge against Hillary Clinton (my deep grudge against her is purely political), but he’s absolutely right that our political system has become a farce, and the media are largely to blame:

…[W]hen Hillary finally arrives, her speech turns out to be the same maddeningly nonspecific, platitude-filled verbal oatmeal that every candidate has spent the last year slinging in all directions — complete with the same vague promises for “change” we’ve heard from every last coached-up dog in this presidential hunt, from Barack Obama to Mitt Romney.

“Some people think you get change by demanding it,” says the former first lady. “Some people think you get change by hoping for it. I think you get change by working hard for it every single day.”

(…)

In a vacuum, of course, this is the most meaningless kind of computer-generated horseshit, the type of thing you would expect to hear coming out of the mouth of a $200-an-hour inspirational speaker at a suburban sales conference. But in this tightest of presidential races, Hillary attacking “hope” amounts to a major rhetorical offensive. “Hope,” after all, is Barack Obama’s own personal spoonful of oatmeal, and by disparaging it, Hillary has given this gym full of political hacks tomorrow’s sports headline.

And the hacks deliver, right on cue. AN OBAMA-CLINTON TEMPEST BREWS roars The Los Angeles Times, noting that Hillary’s shot at “hoping for change ” is directed at Obama, while “demanding change” is code for John Edwards.

The next stage in this asinine process is the obligatory retorts. Obama responds by crowing, “I don’t need lectures about how to bring about change.” The “change-demander,” Edwards, stakes out his own platitudinal turf, insisting that change isn’t about work or hope at all, but about “toughness” and “courage.”

Reading all of this crap the next day, I’m amazed. Here we are, the world’s lone superpower, holding elections at a time when we’re engaged in a catastrophic war in Iraq, facing a burgeoning nuclear crisis in Pakistan, dealing with all sorts of horrible stuff. And at the crucial moment, the presidential race turns into something from the cutting-room floor of Truly Tasteless Jokes #50: “Three change-promisers walk into a bar. . . .”

I mean, is this a joke, or what? What the hell is the difference between “working for change” and “demanding change”? And why can’t we hope for change and work for it? Are these presidential candidates or six-year-olds?

(…)

And while it’s tempting to blame the candidates, deep in my black journalist’s heart I know it isn’t all their fault.

We did this. The press. America tried to give us a real race, and we turned it into a bag of shit, just in the nick of time.

EVERY reporter who spends any real time on the campaign trail gets wrapped up in the horse race. It’s inevitable. You tell me how you can spend nearly two years watching the dullest speeches known to man and not spend most of your time wondering about the one surefire interesting moment the whole thing has to offer: the ending.

Stripped of its prognosticating element, most campaign journalism is essentially a clerical job, and not a particularly noble one at that. On the trail, we reporters aren’t watching politics in action: The real stuff happens behind closed doors, where armies of faceless fund-raising pros are glad-handing equally faceless members of the political donor class, collecting hundreds of millions of dollars that will be paid off in very specific favors over the course of the next four years. That’s the real high-stakes poker game in this business, and we don’t get to sit at that table.

(…)

Give an army of proud professionals nothing but a silly horse race to cover, and inevitably they’ll elevate even the most meaningless details of that horse race to cosmic importance.This is how you end up getting candidates bludgeoned to death on the altar of such trivialities as “rookie mistakes” and “lack of warmth”; it’s how you end up getting elections decided because candidates like John Kerry are unable to overcome adjectives like “looks French” and “long-faced Easter Island statue.”

That’s what happened in Iowa. For once, voters tried to say that they were perfectly capable of choosing a president without us, that they could do without any of this nonsense. But they were wrong. Nonsense would have its day!

(…)

Locked in a tight race with Mitt Romney, [Mike Huckabee] has so far taken the high road, refusing to mention his opponent by name, even though Romney has been whaling on Huckabee’s tax record in recent days with a series of savage negative ads.

For that offense against the unwritten laws of campaign-trail horseshit, Huckabee, the one-time media darling of this race, has lately been taking a beating in the press. Reporters aren’t interested in the real story line — Huckabee the innovative economic populist against Romney the unapologetic Wall Street whore, the Republican who mortified party leaders by talking sympathetically about the poor versus the coifed speculator for whom injustice means the capital gains tax. What the press wants out of Huckabee isn’t more detail about his economic ideas, but evidence that he is willing to “fight back” against Romney. “Can Mr. Nice Guy go on the offensive?” wondered Politico.com, a weirdly aggressive torch-waving newcomer to the media witch-hunt game. “That’s the question facing the surging Mike Huckabee. . . .”

…Previously smiling and Muppet-like in most of his stump addresses, Huckabee today is positively monomaniacal in his fixation on Romney — he sounds like a late-stage Lenny Bruce ranting about cops and Francis Cardinal Spellman. “I did not grow up privileged,” he croaks. “I did not grow up with a last name that opened the door. In fact, my last name probably closed a few. Never in my life did I ever remember somebody asking my dad would he be willing to come out and endorse a candidate.”

To me it’s Huckabee’s worst performance, but the press reviews the next day are exultant. NICE-GUY HUCKABEE FIRES BACK IN IOWA shouts the Baltimore Sun. HUCKABEE DROPS ‘R-BOMBS’ IN IOWA seconds a satisfied Politico.

This scene is a perfect example of the dynamic that dominates virtually all campaign coverage. No matter which issues or grass-roots support elevate a candidate to the limelight, in order to stay there he ends up having to play this game, a sort of political version of Fear Factor in which candidates must eat bowl after bowl of metaphorical worms to prove their worthiness.

(…)

How did one of the most genuinely interesting primary contests in American history devolve into a Grade-D smack-down that even Vince McMahon would be ashamed to promote? The real story of the campaign has been its unprecedented unpredictability — and therein lies the problem. On both tickets, the abject failure of media-anointed front-runners to hold their ground was due at least in part to voters having grown weary of being told by the press who was “electable” and who wasn’t. Both the Huckabee and Ron Paul candidacies represent angry grass-roots challenges to the entrenched Republican party apparatus, while the Edwards candidacy is a frank and open attack on his own party’s too-cozy relationship with corporate America. These developments signaled a meaningful political phenomenon — widespread voter disgust, not only with the two ruling parties, but with a national political press that smugly enforced the party insiders’ stranglehold on the process with its incessant bullying of dissident candidates.

But there was no way this genuinely interesting theme was going to make it into mainstream coverage of the campaign heading into the primary season. It was inevitable that different, far stupider story lines would be found to dominate the headlines once the real bullets started flying in Iowa and New Hampshire. And find them we did.

A month ago, I was actually interested to see who won these first few races. But now that this whole affair has degenerated into a mass orgy of sports clichés and celebrity catfighting, I find myself more hoping that they all die in a fire somehow. And something tells me that most of America would hope that my colleagues and I burn up with them.

The media have their own ideas about how the game is supposed to be played, and any candidate who doesn’t want to play that way risks being dismissed as weak or non-viable. The media also clearly have preferred candidates that they want to see do well, and uncool candidates that they wish would just go away. Have you noticed how many times political pundits and “analysts” have called for Edwards to drop out, yet no-one ever calls for Rudy or Fred to drop out, even when they finish in single digits and behind Ron Paul?

Also, I emphatically agree with Taibbi that the argument about “change” is ridiculous, especially since I really can’t see Obama or Hillary doing much to shake up the status quo, or even making an attempt to. I worry that Obama will compromise rather than fight; and I worry that Hillary will fight for the wrong things.

(h/t Caro Kay at Make Them Accountable)

2 comments January 19th, 2008 at 03:21pm Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Democrats,Elections,Media,Politics

The Stimulator-In-Chief

I’m sure I’m very late to the party on this one, and this has probably all been said already, but I need to get it out of my system because all of Dubya’s little nuggets of wankery are just sticking in my craw and this is the best way to get them out. Some select quotes from his press conference today about his economic stimulus plan, and my reactions to them:

To be effective, a growth package must include tax incentives for American businesses, including small businesses, to make major investments in their enterprises this year. Giving them an incentive to invest now will encourage business owners to expand their operations, create new jobs, and inject new energy into our economy in the process.

Tax cuts for businesses! Woohoo! They will surely spend them in ways that stimulate and enrich the economy and create jobs!

To be effective, a growth package must also include direct and rapid income tax relief for the American people. Americans could use this money as they see fit — to help meet their monthly bills, cover higher costs at the gas pump, or pay for other basic necessities. Letting Americans keep more of their own money should increase consumer spending, and lift our economy at a time when people otherwise might spend less.

“Higher costs at the gas pump,” eh? How did that happen, I wonder. And I’ve always loved that charming antitax catchphrase, “Letting Americans keep more of their own money.” Taxation = Stealing!

Passing a new growth package is our most pressing economic priority. When that is done, Congress must turn to the most important economic priority for our country, and that’s making sure the tax relief that is now in place is not taken away. A source of uncertainty in our economy is that this tax relief is set to expire at the end of 2010. Unless Congress acts, the American people will face massive tax increases in less than three years. The marriage penalty will make a comeback; the child tax credit will be cut in half; the death tax will come back to life; and tax rates will go up on regular income, capital gains, and dividends. This tax increase would put jobs and economic growth at risk, and Congress has a responsibility to keep that from happening. So it’s critical that Congress make this tax relief permanent.

Yes, that’s right; the economy is tanking because people are worried about losing their tax cuts three years from now. Also, I seem to remember that jobs and economic growth were doing pretty well under the Exorbitant Tax Burden of the Clinton years. Bonus points for using the “death tax” euphemism; “estate tax” makes it sound like it only applies to rich people or something. Hey, maybe Congress could pass something to just make the marriage penalty fix and child tax credit increase permanent, whaddaya say?

In a vibrant economy, markets rise and decline. We cannot change that fundamental dynamic. As a matter of fact, eliminating risk altogether would also eliminate the innovation and productivity that drives the creation of jobs and wealth in America. Yet there are also times when swift and temporary actions can help ensure that inevitable market adjustments do not undermine the health of the broader economy. This is such a moment.

The stock market plummeting is actually proof of what a strong economy we have! Awesome! I feel so much better now that I know that this is just an inevitable market adjustment rather than reckless fiscal policy pigeons coming home to roost.

By passing an effective growth package quickly, we can provide a shot in the arm to keep a fundamentally strong economy healthy.

Just because we need a stimulus package right away, that doesn’t mean that the economy is actually bad. Phew, what a relief. Hopefully Congress will keep that in mind when Dubya starts pressuring them to pass a package that’s 70-80% corporate tax cuts right away or the world will end…

January 19th, 2008 at 12:46am Posted by Eli

Entry Filed under: Bush,Economy,Wankers


Contact Eli





Feeds

Linkedelia!

Most Recent Posts

Archives

Categories

Calendar

January 2008
M T W T F S S
« Dec   Feb »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  


Thinking Blogger

Pittsburgh Webloggers

Site Meter


View My Stats *