Archive for February, 2008

In Which You Need To Vote

February 28th, 2008 No comments

So I entered this silly Famecast online talent show and made it, without much effort, to the top 25.  I somewhat wish I hadn’t since now I’m kind of invested in making it to the top 10.  So I need you people to vote and vote DAILY.

Go to Famecast and register.  When you log in, check the box next to the password.  This logs you in automatically.  Once that’s done, CLICK HERE.  This allows you to vote directly without having to load the video or go through any of that kind of shit.

I’d really appreciate your help.  If you enjoy this blog, go ahead and vote.  And tell your friends to vote.  The top 10 ends on 3/7 so go, dog, go!

Categories: Uncategorized Tags:

In Which Larry Sinclair Was…Lying?

February 24th, 2008 5 comments

Wow.  My faith in humanity is shattered.  Broken.  Busted.  Lying in a smoldering heap at my feet dampened by my bitter tears of disillusionment.  Put another way – I’m really fucking sad.

I hereby pledge to everyone who reads this blog that next time I’m not going to be taken in.  The next time a criminal who spent time in jail for credit card fraud and admits to trafficking in drugs and people accuses a sitting US Senator and presidential candidate of drug use and gay sex, I’m going to side with the Senator.  I know I’ve said that before, but this time I really, really, really mean it.  PINKIE SWEAR!

Larry Sinclair, I’m afraid, led us ALL down the garden path to Hell.

It’s not JUST the Globe article that trashed his credibility,  (Not the Boston Globe…The Globe Magazine…no, not the Boston Globe Magazine – THE GLOBE MAGAZINE…the one at the checkout counter…yes, that one), but that goes a long, long way.  I mean, think about it.  If  a tabloid that believes Bigfoot exists won’t believe Larry Sinclair then you’re talking a fairly insurmountable image problem.  I can’t accurately categorize the socio-economic bracket to which most of Sinclair’s followers belong but I can’t help but posit that many of them buy the The Globe and, perhaps, even have subscriptions. released the preliminary results of his polygraph today and it came back with “deception indicated”.  Polygraphs aren’t admissible in a court of law.  In fact, they may simply not work.  G. Gordon Liddy, I believe, can beat it at will.  Also, if you’re dealing with a truly mentally ill person then they honestly believe that they, say, blew Barack Obama in a limo outside an “upscale” club.  Sadly, the Larry-Trash didn’t think about this before they began screaming about how the polygraph would clear Larry’s name.  It didn’t.  Game over.  Shut the fuck up and go back to your trailers, m’k.

The question that remains is – why did people who should theoretically hate gays and criminals believe a gay criminal over an accomplished black man?

In Which The Swiftboating Begins

February 21st, 2008 1 comment

It’s interesting that McCain’s alledged affair with a lobbyist comes on the heels of an attempted Barack Obama scandal.  What Barack Obama scandal?  Y-you didn’t hear about it?  OMG – Some guy in Minnesota came forward and said Obama bought coke and crack then got into the back of his limosine and the guy blew him!  Oh, yah.  Totally credible.  He’ll even take a polygraph test.  HOW CAN HE BE LYING?

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video. 

WorldNetDaily, another fine truth-telling organization with no social, political or religious axe to grind jumped on the story with the following headline – “Sleaze charge: ‘I took drugs, had homo sex with Obama'”.  Yes, you read that correctly – homo sex.  Just like the New York Times would write.

Of course, there is the slight possibility that Larry Sinclair is either an attention whore OR this elections Paula Jones with a twist.  In which case, his video should be more like this –

Please enable Javascript and Flash to view this Flash video.

In Which Vic Eliason Might Kill Your Child

February 14th, 2008 13 comments

Look at that picture! LOOK AT IT!!!



That was basically the message on VCY America‘s Crosstalk radio program today.  Not ONLY is his middle name “Hussein” – not ONLY did he not salute the America flag – not ONLY did he forsake the Bible for the Koran when he was sworn into the Senate – not ONLY is he a Muslim – not ONLY will he put the interests of Africa (all of it, I guess) before those of the United States – BUT his followers put up pictures of Che Guevara in his campaign office(s).

Don’t know what Crosstalk is?  It’s a show where “you can voice your concern for Biblical principles”.  You know, Godly principles like lies and innuendo along the lines of “The Koran allows Muslims to lie to advance the cause of Islam which is the destruction of all other religions”.  You know, little WHITE lies.  Lies that, oh, I don’t know, help to further the cause of Christianity.  Remember that Onion headline after 9/11 – “Hijackers Surprised To Find Themselves In Hell” – that’s what’s will happen to Vic and pretty much anyone who contributes to VCY America.

The “logic” goes that because the worker put up a picture of Che in her office, Barack Obama explicitly approves of Communism and, if elected, would destroy America.  It’s really as simple (minded) as that.  They throw this slop out for the pigs to chow down on and chow they do.  All the anti-Obama talking point came up and were explicitly or tacitly sanctioned by Vic.  Don’t get me wrong, he’s not stupid/evil he’s smart/evil.  Listen to a snippet

Now I want clarify that it was NOT Barack Obama who swore his oath on the Koran.  It was another politician.  And I don’t know if he’s a Muslim or not.  I can’t really say.  I don’t know his heart.  Next caller.

HA!  It’s an almost perfect statement.  If brought up in a court of law, he’s got full deniability.  Fortunately, God’s not stupid and will send Vic to the circle of Hell where he and Falwell will be viciously and brutally sodomized by Satan himself.

I’ve probably posted it before but it’s worth re-posting to establish the level of discourse the callers bring to the program and willful lack of analysis of the hosts.  This is a woman that called to talk about God’s punishment of John Lennon.  Trust me – it’s the best 38 seconds you’ll ever spend (outside of sex)

God’s Punishment of John Lennon

They don’t cut off critical callers immediately.  In fact, they try to engage them which entails asking if they believe in God and if so, if they believe the Bible is inerrant.  From there, Vic will continually ask “what’s your creed” followed by the ever popular “without God there are no morals and everyone would go around killing everybody else.”  By this time, either the caller has hung up and Vic smugly names the act as a lack of courage or a break comes up.

Let’s just pretend for a moment that Vic is right – Obama is a threat to the security of the United States because he allows his campaign volunteers to post portaits of communist leaders.  If that’s true, then what inferences could we draw from a man who runs a summer camps for children and believes the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God?  Well, Deut. 21:18-21 says that you can bring a stubborn and rebellious child before the elders who can stone him to death.  God sanctions it.  Now, I can’t say if Vic would stone a child to death – I don’t know what’s in his heart – but I do know that “inerrant” means…well…without error.  You need to kill the person that does not observe the Sabbath.  That’s God’s Law.  I’m just not sure how comfortable I’d feel leaving my child with someone who might kill my precious son or daughter with God’s blessing and even command.

One thing Vic loves to go on about is how Bill Clinton talked about “redefining the immutable”.  “You can re-define something that’s immutable”, his shtick goes.  And yet – If Vic Elison is not killing children (and adults for that matter) then he, too, redefines the immutable which is the inerrant Word of God.  Either way, he ends up in Hell.

In Which The Shuster Shouldn’t Have Hit The Fan

February 14th, 2008 No comments

– From Chris Crocker’s upcoming YouTube video

This is ridiculous.  MSNBC’s David Shuster gets suspended for a comment that it “seems like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way”?  Something is seriously wrong here.

Shuster, I think, called the situation correctly.  Chelsea got pulled out from the deep freeze to mobilize support from a base that her mom can’t reach with her [sarcasm]special brand of charm[/sarcasm].  Hillary is the epitome of every horrible middle school priniciple you’ve ever had.  Why wouldn’t the 18-24 demographic flee from her?  The solution – put Chelsea on the campaign trail to say, “hey, my mom’s not so bad.”  And I don’t have a problem with that.  Digby points out that plenty of candidate spawn work on their parent’s campaigns.  Fine.  Point taken.  BUT – Chelsea used to have a semi-official press ban on her.  You did not write about her.  You did not talk about her.  It wasn’t quite at the level of not photographing FDR in his wheelchair, but it was close.  I agreed with the press ban.  It’s hard enough being a teenager without having the national media calling you “ugly”.  (John McCain, of all people, told the following joke in 1998 – “Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly? Because her father is Janet Reno.”)

Chelsea is now all growed up and working for a hedge fund.  Does that give the press free reign to say what it wants?  Not really.  What does destroy the press ban, is the fact that Chelsea decided to stump for her mom’s presidential candidacy after (as far as I can tell) doing next to nothing in support of Hillary’s run for the Senate.   I guess they didn’t  need Chelsea to “rock the vote”.  But with the presidential race so tight and with Clinton (Hillary) losing the youth vote, they need all the help they can get, so, “Hi, honey, it’s your mom.  I have a favor to ask…”.

Sure, you can come up with a multitude of other words but in this case “pimp” is not an unwarranted choice.  Chelsea was nowhere to be found until her mom got in trouble.  I’m not saying it rises to Manchurian Candidate levels but it’s still true – Chelsea has allowed herself to be used.  Once you do that, the press ban is over and you’ll just have to get used to it.  You can’t a tell a 9yr-old reporter that you don’t talk to the press.  Chelsea recently started actively reaching out to the press – so how can you blame them for reporting on her?  Should they really treat her any differently than any other child of power?

People take words differently.  They also change their meaning over time.  “Pimp” used to refer solely to prostitution.  While it’s maintained its pejorative meaning, it can now refer to a person using either a person or event cynically for gain.  Or some stupid slang for MTV to latch onto.

I almost got fired from a waiter job at a restaurant for calling the food “shit”.  Well, I didn’t actually call the food shit.  The kitchen manager ordered me to deliver food to a table while I was swamped in the middle of a rush.  I told her, “Look, I don’t have time to take this shit out.”  Did she seriously believe that meant that I thought the food was shit?  I doubt it.  But she did manage use my words to try to get me fired.  If Shuster literally meant that the Clintons exhanged Chelsea for sex (and I’m sure there’s a wingnut website that claims that somewhere) then, yes, suspend him.  Otherwise, you’re just making yourself look stupid.

Maybe it’s just because I’m a guy, but I don’t really see this sexism that MSNBC is accused of.  Matthews is annoying – that’s undebatable – but to my ears, when he starts in on Hillary it just him being annoying.  Why waste your time on Chris Matthews or David Shuster when Billo and Rush and all the other wingnuts hurl nastier invective with greater frequency?  Is it because the wingnuts are unreachable?  Is it because the fairly liberal MSNBC will properly and contritely grovel when asked?  Why beat up on your friends?

Categories: Uncategorized Tags: