Sadly, No!

Anytime the Ole Perfesser writes the following words…

THOUGHTS ON MEN, WOMEN, AND MARRIAGE from Kim du Toit…

…sane people should start shrieking and running for the comfort of the nearest scotch bottle.

Unfortunately for you, I’m not a sane person. Let’s boogie:

Kim Du Toit: Hellllllllllllooooooo, ladies!

I think women don’t understand how clinical men can be when it comes to analyzing a relationship. (Note: just because we don’t talk about our relationship with you, doesn’t mean we don’t analyze it.)

Here’s how I explain it. I think that men keep a running ledger going in their subconscious—all the good/great things about their relationship on the one side, and all the bad/terrible things on the other. At some point or another, if the perceived negatives outweigh the positives, the man will quit the relationship—I mean, just bail out of the whole thing—and usually with a swiftness and finality which confounds women.

Unless they’ve been dating you, dude. Then the reaction is, “What took him so long?”

Because we’re guys, we don’t talk about this much—even, or especially with other men, and hardly ever with women. But it’s a plain fact.

Now, because we’re guys, certain things have a disproportionate effect on both the good and bad things: on the good side, sex, food and shared interests being probably the best examples…

I love how he tosses “shared interests” in at the end there, as if to prove to himself that he doesn’t really see all women as mere blowjob-and-fried-chicken-dispensers.

(And incidentally, what kind of grown man looks to a woman to make his meals? Personally speaking, I’ve spent the past two months teaching myself to cook Thai and Indian. My pad thai and chicken yellow curry can move oceans, peeps.)

…on the bad, infidelity, constant nagging and invasion of privacy constitute the negative.

“Nagging” = “Comb the Cheeto crumbs out of your pubes or I’m never sleeping with you again.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Actually, yes, I can definitely see this happening:

One of Brian McNamee’s lawyers predicted that if Roger Clemens is convicted in connection with the baseball steroids scandal, he’d be pardoned by President Bush. […]

“It would be the easiest thing in the world for George W. Bush, given the corrupt proclivities of his administration, to say Roger Clemens is an American hero, Roger Clemens helped children,” Emery said in a telephone interview. “It’s my belief they have some reason to believe they can get a pardon.”

Let’s open up this question: what other convicted crooks and thieves will get pardons before Bush leaves office? I place odds on Jeff Skilling at 98%.

Republicans have staged a walkout on the Hill.

They demand that, instead of holding people accountable for previous abuses of power, Democrats help facilitate future abuses of power.

RANK ANTISEMITISM in the Democratic congressional primary in Memphis

• If Barack Obama wants to prove he’s not just another crazy Negro, he’d better condemn some guy whom no one has ever heard of.

‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard.

As an added note, we can all see where this game is headed, no? Every week, the Ole Perfesser will find some black guy somewhere who said something crazy and remark darkly about how “disturbing” he finds it that Obama hasn’t come out and denounced him yet. As in, “If Obama really wanted to be a racial healer, he’d let people know that he doesn’t support sexually harassing female employees like Isiah Thomas does. Heh!”

It’s going to be a long, long campaign season, friends. Get ready for lots more shit like this.

UPDATE: And keeping in the spirit of things, I’d like to apologize on behalf of ignorant crackers everywhere for Glenn Reynolds. We honkies aren’t all this insane. I mean it.

UPDATE II: Has Obama apologized for That’s So Raven yet?

Because if he doesn’t, somebody probably should.

Shorter David Brooks:

The Democrats may well win the White House this year, and if they do it will be bad news for the Democrats.

In a Salon piece on the sinking fortunes of the media ombudsman, former NPR ombudsman Jeffrey Dvorkin writes:

At the beginning of the [al-Aqsa] Intifada, my e-mails were running 6-to-1 accusing NPR’s coverage of bias in favor of Israel. But in March 2003 [sic*], a suicide bomber blew himself up at a Passover seder just outside Tel Aviv, killing more than 40 people. Within a day, my mail switched and began to run 8-to-1 accusing NPR of being pro-Palestinian, even though the tone and volume of the reporting had not changed.

I think the shift was due to two factors: 1) the Patriot Act appeared to silence a lot of pro-Palestinian opinion. I suddenly stopped hearing from people with Middle Eastern names. 2) The Passover bombing marked the first time in the Intifada that Israelis were killed in a specifically Jewish (as opposed to Israeli) circumstance. For many NPR listeners, that raised the existential threat of anti-Semitism and many pro-Israel and Jewish listeners responded passionately.

So the Patriot Act, in Dvorkin’s opinion, had the wonderful effect of stifling one side of the debate about Israel and Palestine. And in really stark numbers, too. How is this good for democracy again?

*Dvorkin’s timeline is pretty confusing. It’s not helped by his misdating the Passover massacre or Netanya bombing as happening in March 2003. In fact, it happened on March 27, 2002. The Second Intifada started in September 2000. The Patriot Act became law on Oct. 26, 2001, meaning there was a roughly five-month gap between its signing and Dvorkin noticing what he believes were its effects on discouraging pro-Palestinian NPR listeners from calling him … but not the nearly year-and-a-half gap his mistaken dating would lead us to believe. Also, it seems 30 people were killed in the massacre, not ‘more than 40’. Man, Dvorkin needs his own ombudsman, or at least a fact-checker, don’t he?**

**The promised joke. Such as it is. Rim shot, BWAHAHA etc. et. al. op. cit.

ABOVE: Don Surber, Attorney-at-Law

---

Years of watching Law and Order reruns have finally paid off for Don Surber, who uses the legal acumen garnered in front of his Sylvania 13″ Black and White TV to summarily dispatch a churlish commenter who suggested that Surber might have committed libel when he accused Maria Cantwell of plagiarism:

mjfgates Says:
February 13th, 2008 at 2:59 am

Your link to the AP story is broken; you used their “Breaking News” link, which probably changes every half-hour.

In any case, accusing people of plagiarism when there’s no real evidence that they haven’t DONE that isn’t so much “irony,” as “libel.”

Reply: Asking a question is not libel. Sorry about the link.

In that case, Mr. Surber, is it true that you lure children into your trailer for Moon Pies, show them pornographic pictures of yourself performing fellatio on donkeys and mules and then engage in sexual intercourse with those children? And is it true, Mr. Surber, that you are wanted in twenty-five states for identity theft, wire fraud, racketeering and the distribution of methamphetamine? Just asking questions, of course.

ABOVE: David Freddoso Calls His Mom

---

It’s not easiest being the dumbest kid in the line-up at America’s Shittiest Website™ but clearly David Freddoso works extra, extra hard to make sure that he remains securely in that slot:

A friend has urged me to look back at the Washington Post endorsement of Donna Edwards, who defeated Rep. Al Wynn (D-Md.) in his primary last night. The endorsement is rather incredible, frankly, for a number of reasons.

His [Mr. Wynn’s] vote to scrap the estate tax suggested he was indifferent to his own middle-class constituents.

… I have never heard a serious argument that the estate tax benefits the middle class.

I’ll be back after I finish slamming my head against a concrete block.

…

…

There, that’s better.

Apparently Freddoso thinks that the revenues received from the estate tax are fed to pink and lavender sparkle ponies across the rainbow bridge and are never seen again.

I’m sorry, but indeed, it is Obama, Obama (yeah-yeah-yow). And there is, in fact, a hope in Hell for all of us, including those in the Hil camp.

Above: Okay, yes, ‘the black-death-rising’ part is still a bit much…

But not a hope for them, sweet Jesus, not for those mortgaged souls.

So Assrocket and Co. brokered a deal Monday to shift $25,000 in wingnut welfare from ‘an anonymous donor’ to Norman Podhoretz, who generously allowed that he would donate the money to Soldiers’ Angels to complete the PR loop.

The event: Powerline’s First Annual One-Off 2007 Award Of Dubiously Sourced Cash For The Highest Achievement In Fomenting War With Iran (Book-Form).

The winner: N-Pod for ‘World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism’.

On hand: The Power Trio, Henry Kissinger, Paul Wolfowitz, Gateway Pundit (!) and assorted apparatchiks and foot-soldiers from the WSJ opinion page, the Weekly Standard, the National Review and the Drudge Report.

Assrocket, asked whether this ‘annual’ stunt would ever happen again, inexplicably and uncharacteristically segued into praise for Time magazine’s ability to learn from past mistakes: ‘We were Time’s blog of the year for 2004. There has never been another one.’

Kissinger, still sought after for his keen insight into current affairs, displayed an understated appreciation for his New Media hosts: ‘I don’t know what a blog is. I don’t know how to find a blog.’

The giant of modernity was ‘skeptical about the digitalization of media’ and expressed a fear that if his spoken words ‘get shortened for cyberspace, there is no telling what will come out.’ Could this be a veiled warning from Kissinger that a tight rationing of pixels is in the works?

But what did Kissinger say about Iran, dammit? Ha ha – the Powerline boys, no fools they, tease us with audio from his speech at the event that ‘ends at the precise moment where he starts to talk about what to do about Iran.’

Part 2 will be posted ‘before long’, says Assrocket. Ooh, tease us, please us, Condoleezz’ us.