Sadly, No!

Can it be that I really haven’t posted anything since Thanksgiving? Something about the combination of L-tryptophan and a warm sense of gratitude towards my fellow man must have made me reluctant to comb through the right-wing blogs. Still, I have a job to do, and I can’t let feelings of nausea and the sound of Tom Tancredo’s voice keep me from…

I saw it written and I saw it say

…holy hell! What was that? Did you people see that? It was like — I — oh, never mind. The cold weather’s starting to get to me. And by “cold weather” I mean “gargantuan intake of zoot weed.” All right, back to work. Let’s see…oh, look! Fudgehammer finally got around to posting the Constitutional amendment outlawing Islam that had the whole rest of the right-wing blogosphere popping little genocide boners about a year ago. Fudgy’s always good for a laugh. But I feel like I’ve really already done that topic, and…

Pink Noonan is on his way

All right, that’s it. No more Windex martinis for me after 8PM. Anyway, since then, Fudgehammer’s already moved on to the terrifying news that Islam is now the third-largest religion in Ireland, with Christians outnumbering Muslims by a mere 135:1. So I guess I should let him fret over that for a while and move on to someone else. Someone we haven’t checked in on for a while. Someone who’s always got something intelligent to say. Someone like…like…

And none of you stand so tall

Of course! Mark Noonan! The heroic, caterpillar-browed toad-licker of Blogs for Bush Victory! And it seems he’s feeling a little…pink.

Being gay is not wrong – it is not a sin to be gay; given this, there should be no objection to having gay Americans serve in the United States military.

Mark seems to be suggesting here that if you do things that are sins, like, say, coveting or adultery or having tattoos or eating pelicans, you shouldn’t be able to serve in the military. (There are also those — like, say, God — who seem to think it is a sin to be gay, but I’ll leave that argument up to the people who believe in Him.)

Gay rights activists would have the objections as the mere result of anti-gay bigotry – and I’m sure that there is an element of this in the debate.

You don’t often see Mark in this generous a mood, where he’s willing to admit that prejudice against homosexuals might have something to do with homosexuals being banned from military service. Must be the holiday spirit.

However, there are practical considerations involved here. First and foremost, a generally held opinion – whether well or ill-founded – cannot be lightly set aside, especially in a democratic republic. Say what you will about it, there is a distaste for homosexual acts among the general population, even among some of those who are determined to be very tolerant in the matter. I believe this distaste is irreducible: most people who are not gay will never come around to an idea that homosexual acts are morally the same as heterosexual acts. There will always be an element of the “other” in homosexuality as far as the heterosexual population is concerned.

I know what you mean, Mark. Why, we used to have a similar problem in the service with the coloreds! I forget how we solved it, exactly.

Secondly, and in conjunction with the distaste noted above, there is the practical matter of how to regulate the relations between servicemembers. Part of the objection to having women serve in the military (an objection I share – and do keep in mind that my sister served for 8 years in the Navy, and I still feel this way) is that in the various bonds which can develope between men and women may work at cross purposes to tbe bonds necessary for unit cohesiveness. This is why even to this day women are not placed in front line combat units. Adding open homosexuality to the mix will add yet another potentional morale destroyer to the mix.

So, wait, hold up. Objection #1: We can’t have gays in the military because they gross people out. Objection #2: We can’t have gays in the military because people will fall in love with them and it will destroy unit cohesion. Which is it, there, hoss?

What General Kerr did – almost certainly at the behest of Democrats trying to score cheap points – was absurd; and as a former serving officer he knows it is. Its not just a matter of “I want it, so we will do it”.

Yeah, where would an Army general get the idea that you can just issue a command and have it be obeyed? That’s crazy!

Kerr did a bit of Democratic grandstanding, and that was a disservice to his own cause – now it is time for thoughtful people to engage in real debate over this issue.

Thoughtful people engaging in real debate: That’s Blogs for Bush Victory™.

Dear WaPo Ombudsman,

Pst. Take a look at the comments posted for your “Is-Obama-a-Traitorous-Muslamo-Nazi?-Opinions-Differ” piece. Literally every one of them is extremely negative.

Now ask yourselves, WaPo: is this really the sort of attention you want to get for yourselves? Do you really want to be known for publishing beyond-shoddy, smear-filled “journalism” simply because it gets a big reaction out of sane people who want to tell you how stupid you are? I mean, if you’re only looking to get higher web traffic, you could start offering us a free Page 3 Girl pic with every Dave Broder column we read (though preferably without Mr. Broder in the picture). But if you want to be known as a semi-respectable news organization, you may want to issue a statement ripping this story a new one. Just sayin’, it’s your reputation, not mine.

It’s an interesting question, and I’d like to know the answer.

Watching the unfolding train wreck that is the 2008 preznidential campaign, I’ve come to the depressing conclusion that every major candidate makes me want to throw up at least a little bit. The major Republicans spend every single one of their debates arguing over who’s the crazier asshole, while the major Democrats nearly get into fist fights over which one of them is most likely to get coveted endorsements from David Broder and Tom Friedman. What I’m really looking for is a leader who will get up on the podium and say, “I hate everything about Washington, DC. As president, my first act will be to remodel the entire Washington Monument into a grand middle finger statue in order to properly reflect the contempt and disgust I have with our political class. From the Iraq war to the FISA mess to the bankruptcy bill to the Military Commissions Act… can’t you stupid insane clowns do anything that isn’t insanely and clownishly stupid??!!”

And after he delivered that crazed tirade, he’d preferably instruct Barack Obama to forcibly implement Sharia law. Just because.

But seriously: there are times when I want to throw up my hands and say “Screw it!” and vote for a Ron Paul-Kucinich Kucinich-Paul Unity ’08 ticket. Because while each one of them is, respectively, a wee bit flaky or crazy, I’m pretty sure they’re both sincere. Face it, folks: people who claim to have seen UFOs and who want to return America to the gold standard aren’t trying to deceive the American public by telling them what they want to hear. So when Paul and Kucinich say that they’ll end the stupid-ass Iraq war, I actually believe them, because in reality they’re saner than every damned Villager candidate who is too fearful of offending their overlords at AEI, Brookings and the Washington Post op-ed page. So bring it, peeps. Unity ’08, starring Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul.

Since the right-wing blogs are at full howl over the fact that some of the questions in the Republican YouTube debate were asked by identified non-Republicans, it seems pertinent to offer this clip from the Democratic YouTube debate on July 13th, by way of fostering discussion:

Any questions or comments from our right-wing pals? We’ll be sitting here eating this sandwich.

Update: One of several mega-spazztacular threads on Free Republic yields the following query:

Can you just imagine the outrage, and senate hearings, if a Hunter, or Tancredo supporter actually got to axe the Dums a question?

Their heads would explode!

posted on 11/29/2007 2:48:42 AM PST by rawcatslyentist (I’d rather be carrying a shotgun with Dick, than riding shotgun with a Kennedyl! *-0(:~{>)

Mmm, tasty sammich.

ABOVE: Pat Sajak

---

Pat Sajak occasionally takes off time from drooling over Vanna White’s décolletage and writes a column for Human Winguts Online. Not surprisingly, each and every one of these columns amply demonstrates that Sajak couldn’t buy a vowel if you gave him a two hundred and fifty bucks and a cheat sheet with all five vowels. In his current column, Sajak is ranting about celebrity endorsements — well, celebrity endorsements of Democrats:

Recently, celebrity endorsements have been making news, with Oprah Winfrey saying she would campaign for Barack Obama and Barbra Streisand making the not-so-stunning announcement that she was supporting Hillary Clinton. … [B]ut the idea of choosing the Leader of the Free World based on the advice of someone who lives in the cloistered world of stardom seems a bit loony to me. …

That seems pretty sensible, Pat. It may be the most sensible thing you’ve ever said. So I guess that means you won’t be endorsing anyone, right? Not so much:

I don’t know whether Fred Thompson will ultimately prevail as the Republican Party’s nominee for President, but I find myself rooting for him.

Shorter Pat Sajak: Celebrities should just STFU. Except, of course, for me.

Republican Post-Debate Wrap-up

• Oh my God, the CNN YouTube debate showed the entire country what malignant, bonk-headed wackos we are reveals a shockingly outrageous conspiracy by CNN and YouTube not to screen questioners for party loyalty — thus totally unfairly showing the entire country what malignant, bonk-headed wackos we are.

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

Note: Unlike the so-called ‘blue dress girl,’ who asked an eminently reasonable question on abortion, and is being swarmed by berserk Freepers as we speak, these questioners (and most of the audience, and all of the candidates) are indeed, as far as anyone can tell, Republican:

Update: Boo-hoo! Bias in media! Here’s one that didn’t make the cut:

Above: Our pal Bryan Preston, deputy wingnut to Herself, Michelle Malkin

…And here’s a potential Democrat Party mole possibly chosen by the liberal CNN to undermine Republicans:

Above: On the Hitlery KKKlinton payroll?

Madre de Dios. This is the sort of thing I expect to read in Newsmax or WorldNetDaily, not in the damn Washington Post:

Foes Use Obama’s Muslim Ties to Fuel Rumors About Him

By Perry Bacon Jr.

In his speeches and often on the Internet, the part of Sen. Barack Obama’s biography that gets the most attention is not his race but his connections to the Muslim world.

Since declaring his candidacy for president in February, Obama, a member of a congregation of the United Church of Christ in Chicago, has had to address assertions that he is a Muslim or that he had received training in Islam in Indonesia, where he lived from ages 6 to 10. While his father was an atheist and his mother did not practice religion, Obama’s stepfather did occasionally attend services at a mosque there.

Despite his denials, rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet continue to allege that Obama (D-Ill.) is a Muslim, a “Muslim plant” in a conspiracy against America, and that, if elected president, he would take the oath of office using a Koran, rather than a Bible, as did Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the only Muslim in Congress, when he was sworn in earlier this year. […]

The rumors about Obama have been echoed on Internet message boards and chain e-mails.

Bryan Keelin of Charleston, S.C., who works with an organization of churches there, posted on an Internet board his suspicion that Obama is a Muslim. “I assume his father instructed him on the ways of being a Muslim,” said Keelin, who described himself in an interview as a conservative Republican who will vote for former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee.

“The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the U.S. from the inside out,” says one of the e-mails that was posted recently on a blog at BarackObama.com, the campaign’s Web site, by an Obama supporter who warned of an attempt to “Swift Boat” the candidate. “What better way to start than at the highest level, through the President of the United States, one of their own!”

I love the way this is framed: “Despite his denials, crazy assholes on the Internets are still accusing him of plotting to implement Sharia law upon being elected.”

And speaking of crazy assholes, let’s see if our old buddy Foehammer has written about Barrack Osama’s dastardly ties to the Demon Crescent. Uh-oh! It appears that he has:

In recent days I had the question posed to me: “Is Senator Barack Obama secretly a Muslim?” […]

Obama doesn’t drink. That’s a red flag, believe it or not. He does smoke though, as I mentioned before. Oops. Another red flag. Why? Well, alcohol consumption is taboo in Islam, but smoking is anything but: smoking fine, drinking baaaaad. Just coincidence? […]

The bottom line is this: Barack was influenced by Islamic teachings in his formative years (the Indonesian school in question teaches ages 6 to 12). This is not the chemical mixture for someone that I want to see holding a seat of any type in the White House.

So there you have it. The Washington Post is now giving voice to some of the craziest assholes in the entire crazy asshole world. Thanks, guys. Maybe next week you can write a science story that gives equal time to real geologists and the Hollow Earth crowd. Losers.

UPDATE: Holy crap. This turd was printed on PAGE 1 of the Post today. That entire paper needs to fire itself.

UPDATE II: See also Digby.

Above: Probably will not observe Hanukkah this year

While she was busy dotting her I’s, crossing her T’s, writing love letters to her Dear Retardo and apostrophizing her N’s, Marie Jon’ forgot, I think, to fix this:

Judaists on the Internet regularly post comments from nameless individuals who suggest and boast that they are willing and able to attack soft targets including shopping malls. We must remain vigilant and report suspicious activity to law enforcement authorities

Oh, dear.

Miguel or Michelle Malkin? It is a mystery!:

Dafydd at Big Lizards weighs in. Tons more commentary here.

[Gavin adds: Indeed, Michelle. Ab Hugh’s roundly substantial post is making a big splash!]

Above: Da Fyddy beams up sammich, smells like porkfart.

Close, but not quite. First, there’s the lack of enthusiasm. Then, the absence of direct quotes (e.g., “Blargh!! I will eat you!”) is a sign of trickery. Finally, there are no signature Miguel phrases: no “gravy beast,” “made of ham,” “melty creature,” etc. I call fake Miguel — in other words, it’s Michelle. Reached for comment via Seanbaby, the real Miguel confirmed my deduction. But he also applauded Malkin’s efforts, saying (and I quote):

It is A TRUE BASH on teh BUTTER TROLL wingnut!!
‘weighs in’! ‘tons’!!
OH I DIE FROM THE JOKE!!1!
IT IS TO FUNNY FOREVER!!!1!

Words to live by
28 Nov 2007 05:01 pm

Inspirational words this Thanksgiving from friend and very talented photographer Lara Shipley:

No one would ever do anything if they realized how much they suck.

Permalink :: Comments (0) :: TrackBacks (0) ::

We’ll keep working on it, but Megan seems unlikely to stop launching cheerfully out of bed each morning.