Archive for February, 2009

In Which All Wingnuts Are Unhappy In The Same Way

February 27th, 2009 1 comment

I was thinking about calling this “In Which I Curse Up A Motherfucking Storm” but I changed my mind.  After all, I wouldn’t want to alienate anybody.

There is a certain type of person that professes to be an “independent”. 7 out of 10 times, they’re lying. Mostly, they’re trying to distance themselves from the label of their party while supporting its aims.  On the left, think about the PUMAs who, at first, didn’t want to be called republicans but thought Obama was a terrorist.  On the right, post-bush, almost everyone is an independent.  Nobody wants to support his policies…anymore.

There I was, happily snarkering away (snark+twitter=snarkering) watching teh CPAC conference when someone responded to a comment I made about the terrorists winning.  “What do they win”, the person asked.  Automatically, I repsonded that they won a $100 gift certificate to Whole Foods and a subscription to the New York Times.  Then I realized the person wasn’t following me and I didn’t actually understand in what context she made her comment.

I checked her profile and saw that she was a wingnut.  And while sniffing around, discovered there were bogus “Boston Tea Party protests” nation-wide.  I actually worked for the Boston Tea Party for a little while.  And I know enough to understand that comparisons to Obama’s stimulus plan and the Boston Tea Party bullshit.  Wingnuts LOVE the BTP simply because it’s a decent photo op and even a retard can understand what’s happening.  Tea.  Taxes. Redskins. Outrage. Dump.  If you think your taxes are getting raised because of Obama, then you’re in the top 5% of earners.  You’re filthy fucking rich.  You can afford to help out the country who’s citizens you’ve employed to gain your vast wealth.  Unless, of course, you moved your business out of the country because the Mariella Islands allow you to pay workers shit, thereby increasing your profits astronomically.  What does a 12-yr old need with money!?

But I digress.

I managed to fit my scorn into the 140 character format and tweeted away

#teaparty please trivialize US history by using the boston T-party as fake symbol & forgetting the GOP raised the deficit

Note: the worst thing about Twitter is the best thing about Twitter – the character limit.  Also the pound sign (#) is known as a hashtag which allows twitter-helpers to route your tweet a group or groups.  Thus other poeple looking at the  #teaparty group got to read my tweet.

I won’t say that I was inundated with responses, but I definately got quite a few.  Many claimed this wasn’t really against Obama but govt. waste and that they were independents”.  When I (politely) asked them why they didn’t protest the previous administrations “govt waste” they got all quiet.  One woman, though, kept on-a coming.  “bush didn’t raise the deficit to record levels,” she hissed.  “during his administration he did,” i told her.  She was not to be deterred, this self-professed “independent”.  She continued to try to draw a line between 11:59 and Noon.  I’ve broken down her argument into a haiku

president bush good
obama wasteful spending
God bless the US

At one point, I asked

but you’ll only publicly speak against dems, right? seriously – show me the GOP protests you went to

to which she replied bizarrely

Are you telling me who I can speak out against.  Isn’t that what the radicals in the middle east do?

HUH? Where the HELL did that come from.  All I asked was why, if she was an independent, would she not be actively involved in protesting bush’s wasteful spending.  And, if, as she claimed, her dad and husband were in the military, didn’t it anger her that Blackwater ops made so much more money than them?

they weren’t in it for the $$$

She shot back.

but the money was WASTED and your husband was put at risk by our govt – and you don’t seem to care

And then, the money shot from her

that’s an insult and your freedoms should be taken away

So, in the space of 15mins she went from accusing me of silencing her to telling me that I should be silenced!

That, my friends, is the essence of wingnut.

Categories: Navel (Gazing At) Tags:

In Which We Pull Out Of Iraq…Kind Of

February 27th, 2009 1 comment

I’m going to leave the numbers and methods and all of that stuff to the folks who are much smarter than I am.  But I want to make a quick comment on ‘licans who claim that we can’t get out of Iraq because the moment we do, the terrorist (the ones that weren’t there before we went in) will swoop back into Iraq like bush on a mirror full of coke.

It was a stroke of evil genius to classify “terror” as a valid entity to declare war on.  9/11 is like the booty call that never says no.  This opens the door for ‘licans to squeal “We were attacked once and we can be attacked again except it was our fault that we were attacked and no one’s attacked us since that last attack on our watch which means we’ve done a GREAT job of keeping you safe if you discount that first attack.”  The other amazing thing ‘licans did (and why the MSM should never be trusted again) was figure out how to somehow separate out 9/11 and Iraq.  What I mean is that if you bring up that undeniable fact that bush got us into Iraq on the promise that Iraq could rain down nuclear annihiliation on the US, you’re immediately told that it’s no longer a valid argument.  We’re there – deal with it.  And if we leave, then the terrorists (sort of the same terrorists from 9/11 but kinda different) have won.

So we have to stay until…when?  They don’t have a great answer for that.  Unless you count, “until there are no terrorists left on the face of the earth” a good answer.  Which I don’t.

But how do we get out?  ‘licans keep talking about a gradual reduction but what does that mean?

I’m not a big on parties.  I’ve got a little bit of a social anxiety thing and I’m not big on crowds.  I’m told that if I get warmed up that I’m charming and engaging but that’s not the default.  The default is to look for the exit and strategize the best way to get to it without attracting too much attention.  That’s my exit strategy.  And it’s pretty successful.  I can usually sneak out in such a fashion that people will say, “where’d you go?  I didn’t see you leave.”

I am, however, NOT the US Military.  When we start pulling out troops it’s not going to look like some David Copperfield trick.  Charlie Company won’t simply sneak out the fire exit.  The Iraqis and, by extension, the terrorists won’t wake up one day and think to themselves, “wasn’t there a US army base over there a few days ago?  I thought things seemed a little quiet.”  They’re gonna know and probably immediately.

Or, I guess, like in Blazing Saddles, we could set up a bunch of cardboard cut outs.  I bet those stupid terrorists would fall for that. 😐

Categories: Navel (Gazing At) Tags:

In Which I’ll Trust Them As Far As Jesus Can Throw Them

February 25th, 2009 1 comment

So, let’s say, for the sake of argument, that I’ve always believed that the USA was founded by gay people.  The Dutch, the English, the Spanish – all of them gay.  The Puritians chose that name NOT because they were pure but to disguise the fact that they were dirty, dirty boys.  They brought the women along simply because what gay man doesn’t need a fag hag.

Naturally, you’d challenge me on this.  You’d pull out your history books and I’d pull out mine.  But no matter what “facts” you threw at me, I would never, ever back down from my deep-seated belief that America was founded by gays.

And, then, praise-be to Tim Gunn, an old homosexual calls me up.  He’s on his deathbed.  He needs to talk to me now.  He has a book.  A 200 year old book that proves that gays founded America.  It’s got speeches about gay rights, speeches about the colonial version of the Homosexual Agenda, pamphlets by John “Trixie” Adams.  AND – it is the only existing copy!  No one else has ever HEARD of this book!  It’s not even in the Library of Congress.  There is absolutely no possible way to validate the veracity of this book.  And yet, I’ve gone ahead and had it transcribed and re-released.  Oh. And I changed the name, too.

Would you trust me?  Would you take me at my word?

Substitute “gay” for “Jesus” and that’s what Donald “No More Gay Soup” Wildmon wants you to believe.

Pick up a copy of  Passing the Torch Of Liberty To A New Generation or have a dead old man haunting your every move until your kicked down the golden staircase to Hell!

Categories: Navel (Gazing At) Tags:

In Which Canada Is Exposed And Linked To

February 24th, 2009 No comments

Thanks to Medea and Pepsi’s Poptub for linking to Canada: Evil Empire or Third World Country!  It’s around the 1:55 mark.

Categories: Navel (Gazing At) Tags:

In Which In Our Country Deserves Better PAC Is Against Free Speech

February 21st, 2009 2 comments


I cannot TELL you the number of times I’ve heard wingnuts talk about Liberal Fascism and how we’re Stalinists and how we want to silence free speech by making sure that everyone gets heard.  It’s really hysterical…kind of.  To listen to wingnuts, you would think that they open to honest debate and never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever shut somebody up for simply disagreeing with them.  Again, I’m not saying that Democrats don’t stifle speech because they do.  But my shoulder-angel, D-Rob, keeps me on the straight and narrow when it comes to trashing comments left here.  They sometimes get eaten by the spam filter and I don’t catch it but I haven’t deleted anything.  I did close off a comments on a thread once, but that was mostly for comic effect.

It is with pride and amusement that I’m able to report that my posting privilges at Our Country Deserves Better PAC seem to have been revoked!  I guess that Joe Wierzbicki just can’t stomach dissent and wants to keep his group ideologically pure…kinda like Stalin did!  Or like….nooooo…I’m not gonna sink so low.  *laffin*

Categories: Navel (Gazing At) Tags:

In Which Facts Are Stupid Things

February 21st, 2009 2 comments

Facts are stupid things.
Ronald Reagan

Ok, so Reagan really said it but probably not on purpose.  He was quoting (or tried to quote) John Adams.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.

I could, of course, have just started this off with the quote without providing any context and we all could have had a good laugh at Reagan’s expense.  But then I would be doing what Our Country Deserves Better PAC does.

I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but we have a new president and there are some people that believe that he will DESTROY AMERICA (emphasis NOT added).  Despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary, they believe he’s a radical communist, a soclialist, that he’ll sell us out to Africa, that he dealt drugs, that he’s on the down-low and (though I’m sure it’s a joke) that he’s a voodoo priest.  These are the same people that crow that after 30 days he’s “changed nothing” and that sneer about him not being “bi-partisan”.  This would imply that they would EVER consider working with him, period.  It’s the same as saying “I’ll stop punching you in the face when you stop asking me to stop punching you in the face.”

Before I go on, I want to acknowledge that latte-sipping liberals such a myself engage in the same disingenuous fiddling that dickheads like OCDB PAC does.  (See, that was a little meta-joke there!)  The main difference, I think, is that we generally cave in like Pelosi and Obama have over the Patriot Act.  Democrats will actually vote for what they believe in as opposed to the ‘licans who’ll skunk the stimulus bill despite the fact that it was reported they wanted it to pass.

Ok.  That’s out of the way.

Take a look at the most recent volley from the stomach of OCDB PAC.

As opposition to Barack Obama’s collectivist, big-goverment economic policies & confused and weak national defense/foreign affairs policies grows, support for Obama has taken a hit in the polls.

The Gallup polling organization has been conducting a daily tracking poll and in the past month Obama’s job approval ratings have plunged by 19%.  The drop in support has been particularly noticeable among Independents and Republicans (one month ago a narrow plurality of Republicans approved of the way Obama was handling his job, now a majority of Republicans say they disapprove).

Down 19%??  Holy shit!  If, as they say, his approval rating is down 19% he’s in pretty big trouble, isn’t he?  It sounds like the entire country has deserted him!  Buyer’s remorse, as the wingnuts’ new talking point says.

Not surprisingly, it’s not true.

I’ve been…let’s call it “monitoring” the OCDB Facebook page and chiming in occasionally.  So, I left this on their message board

Numbers are fun! Obama down 19%! He’s gotta be sunk now! 19% is a really big number! It’s a lot. But you’ll notice that the actually poll numbers aren’t used.

According the Gallup (and, please remember, if you don’t back up your statements with links, nobody will check because he’s hated SO MUCH that nobody cares if it’s true or not) Obama started off with at 67% approval rating. ( The new poll has him at….63%

It’s much more dramatic to say that his numbers fell by 19% than he dropped 4 points.

You can also just make up a number that sounds good, too. Do the math, folks. Here’s the Gallup graph –

For the sake of math-iness, let’s say Obama had a 70% approval rating and and it fell 20%. 10% of 70 equals 7 – double that to get 20% and you’ve got 14. 70-14 equals 56.

That’s not terribly close to 63.

Dissent IS patriotic and there’s much to dislike about Obama on both sides of the aisle. But, please, don’t be dishonest about it.

To which Joe responded.

Paul: We take issue with, “Dissent IS patriotic and there’s much to dislike about Obama on both sides of the aisle. But, please, don’t be dishonest about it.” Especially since we provide the graph with the number scale showing the poll results at each interval.

I’ll help you out with specific numbers on specific dates, but I’d ask in the future if you have a question about something we put out, simply ask and we’ll be happy to provide you with clarification or supporting material. But we don’t appreciate people suggesting we’re somehow dishonest. I surely think you’d want us to treat you in the same accord and fashion, yes?

OK, so here we go:

Gallup Daily Tracking Poll
1/21/2009 – 1/23/2009:
68% Approve
12% Disapprove
Net Approval Margin: 56%

Gallup Daily Tracking Poll
2/16/2009 – 2/18/2009
62% Approve
25% Disapprove
Net Approval Margin: 37%

That’s a drop in Obama’s job approval rating by 19% in less than one month.

OK – we’re good now?

HUH?  Wait.  Go and look at the link to the email they sent out.  I see “approve”.  I see ” disapprove”.  What I don’t see is 1) any numbers at all and 2) any reference to “net job approval”.  Sooooo…how, then, do you use numbers that don’t exist to make up a metric that you never defined?  Wouldn’t you call that…um…what’s the word I’m looking for…dishonest?  Isn’t this the same math that got us into the economic debacle that we’re in now?

If you’re looking for some fun, you’d could do worse than join their Facebook group.

In Which CVS Seemingly Has No Holiday To Pimp Out

February 19th, 2009 No comments

What’s after Valentine’s Day and why can’t we make a shitload of money off of it?

Categories: Navel (Gazing At) Tags:

In Which I’m Not Sure If It’s Me Or YouTube

February 17th, 2009 No comments

The axiom goes that comedy is tragedy that happens to other people.  For the most part, it’s true but I’m wondering if I’ve become a little…stodgy lately since I haven’t found the last couple of YouTube hilarities all that hilarious.

The danger (if that’s the right word) in talking about this lies in whether or not to link to what you’re talking about.  In the case of the epic “A woman missed her flight at the boarding gate HKIA”, the Huffington Post linked to it and, in what I assume was supposed to be some attempt at journalism, updated the the post to inform readers that since posting the video the YouTube traffic had tripled.  Gosh!  How did THAT happen?  Are they honestly suggesting that having one of the more popular websites linking to a video has any effect on that amount of people that watch said video?  Well, DAY-AM.  Who knew?

The difficulty lies in whether or not to link to it and increase its popularity.  In this case, my low-traffic, sporadic piece of cyberspace would have little or no effect on its popularity so it’s not much of an issue but I’m not going to link anyway.

Briefly – it’s three minutes of a Chinese woman freaking out (in Chinese) about missing her plane.  Three minutes.  How is this hilarious?  If somehow you happened to be there when it happened, I doubt you’d be ROTFL.  In fact, no one’s laughing on the audio.  She’s just pissed off.  Not even the person with the camera is laug-

Wait.  Person with the camera?  At the risk of getting too deconstructionist, let’s walkthrough what had to happen to get this to YouTube.

1) Woman freaks out
2) People watch her
3) Someone starts filming
4) Someone take video and transfers it to a computer
5) Edits the video
6) Crunches the video
7) Uploads the video to YouTube
8) “Hilarity” ensues

Think about it – a probable stranger posted a video of someone’s bad day and three million people watched it.  Maybe it’s just me, but that’s fucked up.  Is distress in a foreign language funnier than distress in your own?  I’m not going to lie – Chinese is really easy to laugh at.  I’m not proud of saying that, but as a white, middle-class America I’m pretty much programmed for it…kinda like Miley Cyrus.

But even that doesn’t explain why a parent would post a video of their kid whacked out of anesthetics for the amusument of strangers.  Or why ten million people, rather than forming a lynch mob and tracking said parent down, chose to foward the video onto their friends and laugh at this poor kid.  What have you got to be thinking to do that?  “Wow!  My kid is SOOO fucked up right now!  I’m gonna have to get this on tape rather than comforting him.  Hey!  This is some funny shit!  Let’s put this on YouTube!”

Thirty years agao, Paddy Chayefsky wrote a movie called Network which envisioned a world where the concepts of news and entertainment ceased to be delineated.  It was all entertainment.  Violent, revloutionary terrorists were given their own prime-time TV show, filming themselves committing terrorist acts.  The nightly news broadcast included an astrology report.  Anchors did not present the news but rather presented their commentary on the news.  Not to spoil the ending if you haven’t seen it, but the closing narration of the movie informs us that Howard Beale was the first anchorman to be killed because of bad ratings.

Much of what Chayefsky predicted has come to pass.  But he could have never dreamed up the odd, cruel entertainments of YouTube.  He would have been laughed out of Hollywood.

In Which We (The Godless Left) Win A Round!

February 12th, 2009 No comments


Folks, I’m happy to announce that, while it may only be a moral victory, it’s still a pretty big one.

Remember how we used to call ourselves “Liberals”  because we held…well…liberal views like not hating gay people, equal pay for equal work and trying to ensure that, in the richest country on earth, people didn’t starve or die because they didn’t have health insurance?  And then one day, the wingnuts and the religious right figured out a way to say “lllllliberalllllll” so that it sounded sinister and evil indeed of chirply optimistic and possibly naive.*  And once they got the pronunciation just right they taught wingnut and religious talk show  hosts to sneer “lllllliberalllll” as many times as possible until the turned the word into a pejorative that even Liberals shrank from.

So we were forced to change our appellation to “progressive”.

Well, guess what – the same useless fucks that turned a perfectly good word into something wicked…now don’t want to be called the Religious Right anymore!


One of the kings of useless fuckpersons, Gary Bauer, proves that pallin’ around with the Religious Right robs you of your sense of irony:

“There is an ongoing battle for the vocabulary of our debate,” said Gary Bauer, president of American Values. “It amazes me how often in public discourse really pejorative phrases are used, like the ‘American Taliban,’ ‘fundamentalists,’ ‘Christian fascists,’ and ‘extreme Religious Right.’ “

Watch this 2006 clip of Bauer acting like…um…a extreme religious right, fundamentalist,christian fascist .

Take a gander at some of the loving, big-tent statements made by the properly deceased Jerry Falwell.

The religious right worked pretty goddamn hard to make America hate them so it seems a shame to try to hide behind some new name in the hopes that their shit won’t stink as much.

Don’t worry.  It will.

*Note – not that it means anything but “naive” backwards is “evian”.

Categories: Navel (Gazing At) Tags:

In Which I’m Taking A Request

February 12th, 2009 1 comment

[Note: If you’re confused, don’t worry]

There are two main questions

1) How do you not laugh?

2) Don’t you feel badly sometimes?

The last question is the easier of the two.  Rarely.  On a Blog Talk Radio show I did on Sarah Palin, a woman called up furious that I (or rather, he) said she should stay home and that God didn’t want women to hold power over men.  She was filled with righteous fury, trying to give it to me with both guns and, frankly, she probably should have won the argument – but that’s not the point.  The point is that she hung up.  The greater macro-point is that I know that she’s one of the biggest christcons on BTR.  She will condemn the poor for being poor, tell gays they shouldn’t marry and spread vicious lies about pretty much anyone who doesn’t believe her twisted concept of Jesus.  In short – dangerously crazy.  And yet, here she was effectively arguing against her beliefs.  She wanted some of that hateful “inclusion” if only as a special dispensation for herself.  Women (at least, white women) were equal to men before God’s eyes.  It was a big debate in what a friend calls the Talibangelical circles.  Eve was meant to be a helper.  End of story.  Did I feel sorry for her or take her verbal abuse personally?  No.  In fact, it was hard not to laugh (more on that later).  I thoroughly enjoyed giving her a taste of her own medicine.

When I feel badly is when those I’m fighting for don’t understand.  There was a gay man in Texas who died of AIDS.  His brother worked in a church.  The church told him that not only could he use the chapel for a memorial service but, if the man supplied pictures of his brother, they would put together a brief video memorial, too.

Then the church found out he was gay.

And rescinded both offers.

I wrote a piece about it defending the church and their decision not to allow XXX pictures of gay butt sex to be shown inside a house of God etc.  The odd thing about satire is that sometimes no matter how far you push the envelope, it’s not far enough.  On at least two occasions something I wrote wound up getting parroted by Dobson and Crosstalk America.  A day or two later, a family member of the dead man left a comment filled with anger and sadness.  I felt like shit.  In those rare cases I write directly to them, explaining as best I can and offering my heartfelt apology.  I almost never hear back, which is understandable.

As to laughing, well, that’s hard to describe.  It’s a zone you have to get into.  Nick Zaino, one of the best comedy writers in the country, pegged it – you have to allow yourself to disappear into the character.  The way you do that is through rules.  The biggest rule is no swearing.  In fact, it’s almost a side project to see just how offensive you can be without resorting to profanity.  In the 2008 election season, we ran into a little bit of a split because, to my mind, Alan Keyes was the craziest of the candidates and McCain/Palin could not be supported.  One colleague strenuously disagreed on the grounds of race.  I understood that, but christcons are not overt about their racism so referring to Keyes as “a pretty good negro” was too good to pass up.

In the end, it’s all about focus.  If I stop to listen to what I’m saying or indulge myself in enjoying the audience’s response, then I’m sunk.  There are only a handful of time that’s happened.  One was with Boston News Net on a piece about Sarah Palin.  It happens right around the 2:00 mark.  That pause is not for the audience.  That’s me desperately fighting to not crack up.  The other one is this interview with Abie Philbin Bowman who caught me completely off guard with a question about whether God favored HDDVD or Blu-Ray.  It came so out of nowhere that it jolted me out of the zone.

Not surprisingly, then, doing a show on Second Life is much, much harder because I’m juggling more technology than I am at the radio station or onstage which takes away from the focus.  I’m also dealing much more interactively with people and some of them are fucking hysterical.

So there it is!

Categories: Navel (Gazing At) Tags: