Shorter Walter E. Williams, Human Wingnuts Online
Is Profiling Racist?
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™
ABOVE: Kevin Gotkin in his dorm room
Shorter Master Kevin Gotkin (NYU Class of ’11), Mediaite
Another False Controversy: Mika Brzezinski’s Prop 8 “Prancing” Comment
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™
ABOVE: B. Daniel Blatt (body by Photoshop, face by nature)
Shorter America’s Dumbest Pseudo-Homosexual™, The Gay Wingnuts:
Judge Walker: Clueless about the “Historical Core” of Marriage
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™
Above: His many free lunches are courtesy of the Wingnut Welfare Machine.
Shorter James Taranto
The Wall Street Journal
“Best of the Web: Obese? Have a ‘Free Lunch’!”
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™
Among the tsunami of wingnut outrage about the decision in California that will require all men to get gay-married and have teh buttsecks on their honeymoon with their new husbands, it’s not really a shocker that Don Bob “Squeal Like A Pig” Surber would win the statuette for the best performance by a sexually insecure male over the age of thirty attempting to demonstrate his macho creds. For extra hilarity points, Don’s take on the California decision demonstrates — yet again — that singular absence of intellectual acuity that consigns him to the job of being an opinion columnist for a newspaper in West Virginia, a state where newspapers are more often torn up into squares for use in an outhouse (after clipping out any coupons for Hot Pockets and Slim Jims) than are actually read. (“Too derned many big words!”)
The headline to Surber’s post on the California decision starts off the fun: “Judge: Voting Unconstitutional,” revealing that Don Bob not only hadn’t made it through the 138 page decision (“Too derned many big words!”) but also apparently learned everything he knows about the opinion from the chryon crawl during a Fox News Broadcast (“I wish they’d slow that derned thing down a little so it’d be easier for me to read!”). Understandably the subtle difference between the process of voting and the result of a particular vote is difficult for Don Bob to grasp, particularly inasmuch as Don Bob still can’t figure out the difference between antifreeze and crème de menthe, regularly pouring the former into his Southern Comfort stingers. (“Doc, this ringing in my ears won’t go away and I think I may be going blind.”) I looked back through Don’s scribblings to see if he expressed similar outrage when the Supreme Court has overturned democratically adopted gun prohibition laws. Sadly, no!
The voters of California decided that marriage is between a man and a woman.
A gay federal judge told them to go to help.
Wait a minute! Judge Walker is GAY? Are gay judges even allowed? Won’t they decide cases based on which side has the cutest attorneys and shout “fabulous objection” and stuff from the bench? And what children will ever again dream of going to law school once they realize that they might have to stand up in a courtroom and call a gay judge “your honor”?
The irony is that the same type of improvisational adjudication gave us the Plessey [sic] v. Ferguson ruling that denied blacks their 14th Amendment rights for 58 years.
Er, right, Don Bob. A case striking down a discriminatory law as unconstitutional is exactly the same thing as a case upholding a discriminatory law as constitutional. Because, I guess, if you let courts strike down discriminatory laws it means that courts cannot strike down other discriminatory laws and so gay marriage will mean that women can’t vote and blacks must ride in the back of the bus or something.
Don, it’s arguments like this that causes the Pulitzer Committee to call you each and every year and ask you, yet again, to stop nominating yourself. Not going to happen, Don Bob. Ever. As in I’ll gay marry Ryan Kwanten before Don Bob even gets a Pulitzer nomination and I’ll gay-have Ryan Kwanten’s gay children before Don Bob wins the prize itself.
Impeach the judge for hearing a case in which he had a pecuniary interest — a tax break if he marries his gay lover.
OMG, he might save a couple of hundred bucks on his California taxes. That’s nothing of course compared to the money that he’ll save by having a family membership at the gym and by being able to share a Costco membership. Assuming, of course, the gay judge Walker wants to gay marry his gay lover and live in a gay house on gay street and do gay things with other gay-married gay people. Did Don Bob mention that the judge was gay?
Actually, you have to wonder if there is any judge who could have been impartial in deciding the California case. If the opponents of gay marriage are correct, gay marriage will destroy the institution of “opposite” marriage, which will be bad for heterosexuals. And of course the gay judges will always vote for the gay. So who could possibly be impartial except perhaps for . . .
. . . a Karakasa. (Jesse Taylor nominates Cthulhu for the job.)
Andrew Breitbart’s boy ward Patterico, worried about an upcoming LA Times profile of the Big Sleaze, cautions his bossman:
Andrew, I have one piece of advice for you: record your interview. Unless you want to see pieces of the interview bubble up in distorted fashion in a future Rainey column.
Live by the out-of-context quote, die by the out-of-context quote? One can only hope.
ABOVE: K-Loaded
Shorter K-Lo, America’s Shittiest Website™
Re: Cesar’s Phone Booth
K-Lo, America’s Shittiest Website™
Re: Cesar’s Phone Booth FIXED
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™
When we last visited with the well-fed and rosy-cheeked Julie Gunlock, she was in high dudgeon about the cuisine at a DC soup kitchen that was serving fancy-pants gourmet items to the homeless instead of graham crackers and gruel. If you give a homeless man a bowl of pumpkin soup, she whined, he’ll never break the vicious cycle of poverty, alcoholism, drug abuse and disease and instead will simply spend the rest of his life supping on puff pastry, arugula, balsamic vinegar, baby artichokes and other delicacies normally reserved for people who have their own homes.
In most cases a performance like that would be hard to top. Most decent people with even a modicum of shame know that it’s not really good form to argue that some people simply deserve crappy food because they are, well, less fortunate. Noblesse oblige, and all that, keeps all but the most lunatic of wingnuts from straying down the path of trying to yank shit off of a hungry person’s dinner plate.
Of course, veteran SadlyNauts know that the preceding paragraph is a dead giveaway that Julie Gunlock has indeed managed to sink even lower in her culinary Darwinism.
What, your are probably wondering, could be worse than complaining that the food doled out in soup kitchens is too hoity-toity? Think children. Think hungry children. Think hungry poor children Think school breakfasts and lunches that are sometimes the only meals that children eat that don’t come in a snack food bag from 7-11. And, yes, Julie Plumplock thinks that this free lunch for 8-year-old freeloaders should be stopped so that their impoverished parents can whip up in their tiny kitchens some nutritional lunches for their kids to carry to school to eat instead of the government-subsidized food in the cafeteria.
Feeding a child is one of the most basic parental responsibilities, yet first lady Michelle Obama wishes to liberate parents from this fundamental role by urging them to rely on the public schools to feed their children.
Julie thinks, apparently, that if inner-city and rural mothers are liberated from the tyranny of the statist school cafeteria, they will be able to send their children to school with cold poached salmon (high in Omega-3s) and whole grain salads (say a tasty tabbouleh), both to be washed down with pomegranate and acai berry juice and all packed up in a fancy little lunch boxes.
In this op-ed in the Washington Post, the first lady pushes for congressional passage of the Child Nutrition Act, a bill that would not only increase funding for the already-wasteful and badly managed school-lunch program but relax eligibility requirements so that more children can be enrolled.
Oh my god! There go the socialists shoving more food down poor kids throats. Those throat-cramming socialists, by the way, include the noted Marxist Saxby Chambliss who, along with a number of other Lenin-worshiping Republicans, supports the bill
If this country is going to get serious about childhood obesity, we need to detangle food and the public schools and get back to better parenting — basic parenting. Government doesn’t do anything well, least of all cooking.
This is rich coming from Julie Gumlock, a name that refers to the visceral reaction of most people when they encounter one of her culinary delights. Ms. Gumlock has printed a number of recipes in her food column in The Examiner including one called — I shit you not — Cheese Platter Pasta. Here is a shorter version of Cheese Platter Pasta:
I have to think that even on the worst day in the most pathetic school cafeteria in the deepest backwoods of Georgia every single tray of food served up from that kitchen would be tastier and more nutritious than Ms. Gumlock’s Cheese Platter Pasta, which disqualifies Ms. Gumlock absolutely and forever from uttering another word about any school lunch program.
Heartless jerk Steve Spruiell continues to flop, flail and moan like an Italian soccer player in the middle of a penalty dive because we made fun of his outmoded Byron-Yorkish locks. I didn’t see all of the tweets shown below when Steve first spluttered them out yesterday, mainly because Steviekins doesn’t have the Twitter reply thing quite figured out yet, but I thought that all you SadlyNauts! might find them amusing.
Notice he goes on and one about everything BUT what started this in the first place — namely, my query as what kind of hypocritical simpleton complains, on a site that doesn’t allow comments, about Krugman putting a limit on the length of comments at his own blog? Hey, Stevie, come on. Step up to the plate on this one and take your best swing whiff at it.
Not bloody likely, of course. Steve-o would rather whine about how I was making fun of his kid, which I wasn’t (unless, of course, the haircut was the kid’s idea, which, frankly, seems unlikely). But this effort by Steve to fall on his Sarah Palin memorial fainting couch clutching his progeny to his breast is, frankly, pretty lame given that I showed more concern for the little tyke, by pixelating his face, than Spruiell did when he posted the identifiable picture in the first place. Steve at first seemed to concede this until he got all tanked up on Cap’n Morgans and Sunny Delight last night in his double wide and started tweeting again.
For continuing coverage go to my Twitter page and Stevie’s Twitter page. (Note: Sadly, No! is not responsible for any trauma caused by viewing the background design on Steve’s page.)
UPDATE: Oh, and how about we place a little side bet on how long it will be before Steve calls me a fag?
*Cf.
ABOVE: Tim Daniels
Shorter Tim Daniels, The Daily Little Tucker
Hypothetical Reasoning
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™