Intelligent Imbecility

There are lots of ways to promote bigotry and ignorance. The easiest and most obvious is to just run around shouting “Fuck faggots!”, which accounts for 90% of internet traffic. Another is to declare that you heard from an invisible, silent being that exists…somewhere…that faggots are bad and don’t deserve equal rights. Another is to assert that it’s just your belief that faggots are evil, and how dare you insult my beliefs (which are insulting to other people) (oh, and I want my beliefs enshrined in the law)?

The problem with these approaches is that the public is catching on to them. Stupid can’t hide for long, and more and more people are saying “Fuck your beliefs” and giving gays equal rights anyways. “Damn it!” says the bigot. “I have to deny people their rights, but I can’t do it by being an obvious dumbfuck any more! Whatever shall I do?” The answer is provided, luckily for the bigot, in today’s Washington Post. You gotta be a sneaky dumbshit bigot. You gotta take what you think the opposition believes (which is, of course, nothing like what the opposition actually believes–you are a dumbfuck bigot after all!) and turn it around on them! You gotta be, not really clever, but what you imagine to be clever in your tiny little pea brain. You gotta be an intelligent imbecile.

Behold.

Is gay marriage really progressive?

  • By Norman Leahy and Paul Goldman
  • February 20 at 6:38 am

Ha! Take that, liberals! We put a question mark in our title! That should fill you with doubt about your own beliefs. ‘Cause that’s how intelligent imbecility works. We’re tricky and shit.

Same-sex marriage advocates, and their lawyers, cite Jefferson’s “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” to underscore everyone’s right to marry without state interference. Last week, they successfully challenged Virginia’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. Given current legal trends, there seems little doubt that the Supreme Court will ultimately agree with U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen’s ruling. Gay rights advocates believe this ruling is a major progressive advance.

I’m a gay rights advocate, and when I heard about that ruling the first thing I thought was, “Major Progressive Advance.” Except for the part where I never thought any such thing. Actually, my first thought was, “The bigots are gonna shit themselves,” and boy oh boy was I right.

We ask: Why is this progressive?

No you don’t. You never asked that. This is just a bullshit rhetorical device for you to try to make yourselves look smart while spouting idiocy. The only people you’re fooling with this shit are people who were already dumb enough to agree with you before you even wrote a word.

Or put another way: Why is giving the government more power over your personal life, as opposed to less, considered progressive?

Why are loaded, deliberately misleading questions the things you beat your wife with?

Oh, I’m sorry, was that out of line? I should have known you would never beat your wife. You just take out your frustrations by raping and murdering a hooker. My bad.

See? I can make up passive aggressive dogshit about other people and spout it without blinking! Publish me, Washington Post!

The government gives legal benefits to people in marriages that the government recognizes. All gay people are asking is that they receive the same benefits. It’s not that fucking hard to understand. This doesn’t involve government controlling their personal lives. But singling out gay people specifically to ban them from certain benefits? That DOES involve government interfering with people’s personal lives. No fucking duh.

Ironically, it may turn out that gay marriage advocates are trying to further cement a dangerous philosophical trend that they would normally see as conservative, retrogressive or even reactionary.

Ironically, there’s no irony here, since you’re just pulling this out of your tightly puckered asshole.

Gay marriage advocates believe the progressive position is to require every marriage to get the same governmental blessing. But this is actually not a progressive or liberating posture at all.

The right approach for those who believe in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” freed from government control is self-evident: no government control over marriage.

This is becoming the new right wing way to promote straight privilege. They ignore all the legal benefits of marriage (hospital visitation, shared tax forms, tax benefits, etc.) and act like marriage is nothing but a word. But I guarantee you–if either of these guys’ wife is in the hospital, they’ll damn sure take advantage of the “government control” that lets them visit her. And when these two fucking nitwits file their taxes, they’ll damn sure let “government control” give them some marriage-based tax credits.

Which is to say, they’ll glad spew empty words about “government control over marriage” in a rag like the WaPo. That’s just words. But the moment it affects their real lives, everything they’re saying goes right down the shitter.

The same-sex marriage position requires first accepting the government’s right to sanction marriage.

It obviously doesn’t. It requires recognizing that straight couples get benefits that gays don’t. It requires recognizing how fucking unfair that is. It also requires knowing a right wing bullshit artist when you see one–and I see two that the WaPo decided deserved to have their verbal fecal matter spread to the entire country.

Moreover, advocates don’t merely agree to give government this power, they accept a state’s right to discriminate. The federal court decision overturning Virginia’s gay marriage ban is premised on the state failing to provide a sufficient reason for discriminating between couples wanting to get hitched. This presupposes the right of the government to sanction marriage. Ironically, this is the position of the supposedly conservative traditional marriage defenders.

Go back and read that paragraph again. The first sentence is supposed to tell us what the latter sentences will demonstrate. Read it. The first sentence has absolutely nothing to do with anything that follows. Read it again. I challenge you to explain how the first sentence is even tangentially related to anything that follows.

Keep in mind: The WaPo published this illogical garbage. And the WaPo is purportedly a respectable newspaper. Yeah, fucking right.

But the really important point to keep in mind here is PRIVILEGE. These two fuckheads have probably taken advantage of marriage rights numerous times.  They just take it for granted. Pick up your kids from school? Sure, Mommy and Daddy are married, and legally that’s all that’s required to retrieve your kids from school (even if they aren’t your biological children). They don’t even think about it. The only reason they can flippantly tell gays “Just don’t get legal recognition” is that they’re so used to legal recognition that they can’t even realize they have it any more.

Trust me, no married couple would ever voluntarily give up the legal benefits they enjoy. Norman Leahy and Paul Goldman are no different.

While the Supreme Court has made other important rulings on marriage in the past, no jurist ever suggested disagreement with state laws banning same-sex marriage — until recently.

It’s never been done before, so why do it now?

(Nota bene: This exact same argument could have been made against inter-racial marriage 60 years ago.)

Gay rights lawyers say such decisions were wrong, surely by today’s standards. We ask: What is progressive about conditioning the state’s right to sanction marriage on changeable judicial attitudes?

You don’t ask that. You’re not asking anything. Stop pretending that you’re capable of thought.

Anyone who reads this can see exactly what you’re doing. The bigots have lost the gay marriage debate on one front after another, so now you just wanna take your ball and go home. Just end legal marriage entirely! That oughta go over well! I’m sure the step-fathers out there who no longer have legal guardianship over their step-children won’t mind at all! Right wingers are smart!

The more principled approach, which is consistent across the philosophical spectrum, is leaving marriage to the religious and family institutions from whence it came.

What philosophical spectrum? Is there even such a thing as a philosophical spectrum? I’ve been studying philosophy since 2000, and I’ve never encountered any such thing.

Privilege is again at play here. What Leahy and Goldman are really asking is, “Can’t we just let the church (which already excludes gays) give us all the benefits and tell everyone who’s not like us to fuck off?” No, shithead, you can’t. It doesn’t work that way. Marriage is a civil contract. It has been for a very long time. And I know, you really want all the benefits to yourself, even if sharing them with others won’t cost you a thing. That’s because you’re suffering from a common disorder known in psychiatry as Being An Asshole.

Marriage existed long before there were government bureaucrats looking to raise revenue by collecting license fees.

Yeah, that’s why the government recognizes marriages. The tiny fees they get from licenses.

https://i0.wp.com/affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/wp-content/uploads/brilliant_cigar1.jpg

If a person meets whatever common sense, minimal legal requirements are established for people to wed — such as those related to age, health, mental capacity or banning incest — why should government approval be required?

That’s what the gays are asking. You seem to have missed this part.

You see, STRAIGHT marriages don’t require government approval. Wanna get married? Sure, why not. It’s not like there’s an exam. As long as you’re straight, you get married. Simple as that.

All gays are asking is that they be treated the same way.

If gay rights advocates truly believe marriage is a protected, inalienable right, then they should be in court arguing against state-sanctioned marriage per se.

It’s not that gays are destroying traditional marriage, it’s that they SHOULD be destroying traditional marriage. See how subtle and nuanced these bigots are becoming?

What about the traditional marriage position – that defining these unions is up to the states and that states have a vested interest in promoting traditional families? It runs counter to the conservative belief in limited government.

The true conservative position should be to let the church control everything. Christian hegemony for the win!

Same-sex couples are generally no better or worse at parenting than those with different sexual orientations. Limiting marriage on procreation grounds, even if legal, is a slippery slope that would trample the Constitution and personal liberties in a way worthy of China, not America.

That’s the only point in this op-ed where these two say anything even vaguely rational. But then they fuck it up by going, “China! Amiright?”

Most important, a marriage license is derivative, not the basic right at issue. If the right to marry is inalienable, then the government needs to stop seeing it as another revenue raiser or privilege creator.

We should just leave it to religious institutions! They secure privilege much more hatefully than the government ever could!

In practical effect, all same-sex marriage proponents are claiming is their inalienable right to be required to pay a marriage fee like everyone else.

How the fuck did this sentence make it past an editor?

All they’re claiming is a fee? So hospital visitation isn’t part of legal marriage? And neither is guardianship of children? What about inheritance rights? Adoption? Tax credits? Spouse benefits for insurance plans?

No, none of that exists. Well, it all does exist, but Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumb are so caught up in their own privilege that they stupidly don’t even realize how much legal benefit they get from marriage. They think they can just erase the entire legal structure of the marriage cake and still get all the frosting. Well, sorry, fucknuts. It doesn’t work that way. If you actually got your way, you’d have no legal basis on which to claim you can visit your wife if she’s dying in the hospital. Think about that–if you ever even think at all.

Look, I’m not saying all conservatives are stupid. I’ve met a few smart ones. But too many of them are complete idiots. And the worst type of conservative idiot is the one who masters the English language just enough to make an argument that might be mistaken for rational human thought if viewed from a thousand miles away through layers of skin-melting fog. In other words, the one who’s able to gussy up his imbecility with just enough false erudition to be published in an overrated rag like the WaPo.

Do you like watching movies about gladiators?

Well, let’s see here. I’m just gonna dig through some of the shitty right wing blogs I check from time to time and see what idiotic fucknugget pops up. Haven’t been to The American “Thinker” in a while, might as well see what they’re up to. Hmmm… What’s this?

The Gladiator: Sarah Palin, We Need You Back in the Arena

By Lloyd Marcus

Oh, this is gonna be good.

Hello, calling Sarah Palin!  Has anyone seen her?  Where is she?  Has Sarah Palin left the building?  Is the Palin magic gone forever?

You haven’t seen her because you’ve got your TV permanently tuned to Fox News, your only source of information, and they canned her ass. [See UPDATE below.]

No.  The Palin charisma and mass appeal are still alive and well.

Is “mass appeal” another one of those terms that means something totally different to godbots than it does to the rest of the universe?

Certain people are born gifted with “It” — something that compels you to watch them.

Please note that this mystical “It” also applies to Honey Boo Boo.

Sarah Palin is one such individual.  Though politically tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail by the left and a few spineless Republicans, I pray for the day when my favorite gladiator Sarah Palin returns to the arena.

I can never hear the word “gladiator” without thinking about this. And now I wish Sarah Palin would just move to Australia so they have to deal with her shit and we can be left in peace.

Unquestionably, the vitriolic attacks on Palin and her family, the betrayals by Republicans and associates left Palin severely wounded.  Who among us could endure and survive the full weight of the MSM launched to destroy you?  It is quite understandable and reasonable for Palin to say, Forget this.  Todd and I are goin’ fishin’.

Let me interject: The WELL DESERVED vitriolic attacks. Some people fully deserve to be ruthlessly mocked and ridiculed, and Sarah Palin joined that club the moment she first opened her big, stupid mouth in public.

But, the Bible says, to whom much is given, much is required.

Something tells me you’ll be conveniently forgetting about this Bible verse very soon…

While Palin has not reported seeing a burning bush,

That’s understandable. Not many people would want to publicly announce they have crabs.

At the moment, there is no one on the national stage who inspires the masses to follow and act on their convictions like Palin.

No one does it like her. Mostly in the sense that a dried up catfish with a pencil stuck through it would do a better job of it than she has.

Please allow me to share my personal testimony of the “Palin Effect.”

She gave you crabs?

From inside our Tea Party Express tour bus, as we approached the site, I saw seniors parked a mile away, making their way to the event using walkers.  It gave me goosebumps.  Obviously, this woman, Sarah Palin, represented the America they loved and feared was slipping away.

That reminds me of another Bible verse that Christians like to forget whenever it’s convenient.

Despite all of the scandals, lies, outrageous government overreaches, and abuses of our civil liberties under this administration, Obama still gets a pass in the minds of far too many ill-informed Americans.  Decades of dumbing down students have produced exactly what the left wants: sheep totally dependent on government, clueless regarding U.S. history and the cost and value of freedom.

The only way to stop dumbing down America is to elect the dumbest politician to run for office since Orgg the caveman accidentally castrated himself while running for Chief Rock Stacker.

And you don’t get to call other people sheep while writing a fucking sycophantic puff piece about Palin with a barely concealed boner.

So Obama can ignore the Constitution and do whatever he pleases as long as the food stamps, disability checks, welfare checks, and free phones keep coming.  Under Obama, an unprecedented half of the country are eating, talking on their phones, and driving without working for it — a Democratic party dream come true.

There we go repeating that same fucking bullshit lie that Romney inflicted on the world last year. There are lies, then there are damned lies, then there’s typical Religious Right talking points.

And seriously, eating? You object to them EATING? You’d rather poor people just starve? Along with their children? Hell, the godhumpers get more vile every day.

Anyways, this whole paragraph is just gonna go down the memory hole, because in the very next paragraph…

I asked friends at dinner, “How did Ronald Reagan win in a landslide touting Conservatism?  Jerry Falwell and his Moral Majority was said to have figured in the mix.  Americans, for the most part, are a moral and just people.

You just called half of Americans dirty freeloading bastards for the sin of not starving. And now you’re saying most Americans are moral? Do I need to explain to you what the word “most” means?

I was a 20-something black kid from the East Baltimore projects back then.  I knew nothing about politics.  All I knew was that every time I heard President Reagan speak, I felt good about my country and myself.  Reagan made me feel I could achieve and contribute to this wonderful country, in which I was blessed to be born, called America.

So you were utterly ignorant, but Reagan made you feel all warm and fucking fuzzy inside, and that was all you needed to vote for him. How, exactly, is it our side that’s dumbing the country down?

Oh, and by the way–YOU LIVED IN THE PROJECTS??? As in public housing? As in paid for by tax dollars? And you have the fucking gall to tell poor people today to starve rather than get a little assistance?

GO.

FUCK.

YOURSELF.

Where are the voices inspiring folks to love and contribute to the greatness of their country?  I know, I know.  Such talk sounds corny and naïve today.  In Obama’s America, signing up for government assistance and approving of government confiscating the earnings of high achievers for redistribution is the new definition of compassion and patriotism.

Hey, remember that Bible verse about how to whom much is given, much is required? No? Didn’t think so.

We need a hero, folks — someone willing to stand up for America, boldly waving our flag and touting the virtues of hard work, self-reliance, family, God, and country.

We’ve already got a fuckton of those hypocritical, jingoistic shitbiscuits running around. We don’t need any more.

I believe that Sarah Palin can pull it off.

No need to be so up front about it. I already knew you wanted her to jerk you off.

Reading my own words sound a bit corny even to me.

You are so motherfucking far beyond corny that the light from corny would take a million years to reach you.

Sarah Palin, please come back.  Run for office.  We long to cheer you on as our gladiator in the arena.

Plus it would be comedy gold.

________________________________

UPDATE (6/19/13): Well, she was canned until a few days ago when Fox News inexplicably brought her back. Un-fucking-believable. We just can’t get rid of this ass-barnacle of a human being. It seems that some malevolent force is determined to keep her hideous face in the news to torture all right-thinking people in perpetuity. However, we can find some solace in this excellent Daily Show episode.

Criticism ≠ Bigotry

CNN continues its track record of reporting No Shit Sherlock stories in which they give a large, national platform to some right wing bigot to spout the same crap they always say as if it were something revolutionary. This time it’s a bunch of evangelicals whining about how they’re the new persecuted minority because their bigotry leads to people calling them bigots, which is JUST LIKE what has been done to minorities.

When Peter Sprigg speaks publicly about his opposition to homosexuality, something odd often happens.

During his speeches, people raise their hands to challenge his assertions that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but no Christians speak out to defend him.

“But after it is over, they will come over to talk to me and whisper in my ear, ‘I agree with everything you said,’” says Sprigg, a spokesman for The Family Research Council, a powerful, conservative Christian lobbying group.

We’ve heard of the “down-low” gay person who keeps his or her sexual identity secret for fear of public scorn. But Sprigg and other evangelicals say changing attitudes toward homosexuality have created a new victim: closeted Christians who believe the Bible condemns homosexuality but will not say so publicly for fear of being labeled a hateful bigot.

Waaaaaah! We can’t spout bigotry without being called bigots! We’re the real victims here!

Bryan Litfin, a theology professor at Moody Bible Institute in Illinois, says Christians should be able to publicly say that God designed sex to take place within a marriage between a man and a woman.

“That isn’t so outrageous,” Litfin says. “Nobody is expressing hate toward homosexuals by saying that. Since when is disagreement the same as hate?”

Since when is disagreement the same as denying people marriage rights, allowing businesses to fire people for being gay, opposing anti-gay bullying laws for schools, and other forms of oppression which are clearly not merely disagreement?

But quoting the Bible doesn’t inoculate anyone from becoming a bigot or hater, some scholars say. There’s a point at which a Christian’s opposition to homosexuality can become bigotry, and even hate speech, they say.

Crossing such a line has happened many times in history.

A literal reading of the Bible was used to justify all sorts of hatred: slavery, the subjugation of women and anti-Semitism, scholars and pastors say.

“Truly damaging speech cannot be excused just because it expresses genuine religious belief,” says Mark D. Jordan, author of “Recruiting Young Love: How Christians Talk about Homosexuality.”

“Some religious beliefs, sincerely held, are detestable. They cannot be spoken without disrupting social peace,” says Jordan, a professor at the John Danforth Center on Religion & Politics at Washington University in St. Louis.

First sensible thing anyone in this article has said so far. Now, let’s get back to the stupid.

A blogger at The American Dream asked in one essay:

“Are evangelical Christians rapidly becoming one of the most hated minorities in America?”

The reluctance of evangelicals to speak out against homosexuality is often cited as proof they are being forced into the closet.

Or maybe it’s proof that some of them are starting to realize how idiotic it is to attack someone for something that has no effect on them or anyone else.  Maybe some part of their tiny, reptilian brain stems somehow managed to avoid getting completely fried by religious dogma and whispers to them, “You sound really, really stupid and mean-spirited when you attack gays. Maybe you shouldn’t do it…”

Joe Carter, editor for The Gospel Coalition, an online evangelical magazine, wrote a blog post entitled “Debatable: Is the Christian Church a ‘Hate Group’?” He warned that young people will abandon “orthodox” Christian churches that teach that homosexuality is a sin for fear of being called haters.

“Faux civility, embarrassment, prudishness and a fear of expressing an unpopular opinion has caused many Christians to refrain from explaining how homosexual conduct destroys lives,” Carter wrote.

Or again, maybe they’re not able to repress the cognitive dissonance that arises in the brain of any non-insane person who hears a phrase like, “homosexual conduct destroys lives.” I’ve met quite a few gay people in my life. They all seemed to be doing just fine. In fact, the only recurring problem was that if they openly said they were gay, they faced a flood of anti-gay Christian “love” which sought to deny them rights that everyone else enjoys.

And, seriously, you’re accusing the non-Christians of prudishness? That’s fucking rich.

Some Christians fear that opposing homosexuality could cause them to lose their jobs and “haunt them forever,” Carter says.

You’d think that would make them a little more empathetic to the many gay people who have lost their jobs for being gay. But then again, you’d think.  They don’t. That’s why they’re evangelicals.

Edward Johnson, a communication professor at Campbell University in North Carolina, says we are now living in a “postmodern” era where everything is relative and there is no universally accepted truth. It’s an environment in which anyone who says “this is right” and “that is wrong” is labeled intolerant, he says.

There was a time when a person could publicly say homosexuality was wrong and people could consider the statement without anger, he says. Today, people have reverted to an intellectual tribalism where they are only willing to consider the perspective of their own tribe.

Whereas god-humpers are well known for their open-mindedness and willingness to consider other people’s viewpoints.

“They are incapable of comprehending that someone may have a view different than theirs,” Johnson says. “For them anyone who dares to question the dogma of the tribe can only be doing so out of hatred.”

Oh, yes. When we say, “Treat gay people like humans and stop being such a busybody,” that’s intellectual tribalism and dogma because we can’t understand anyone else’s point of view but our own. Now, let’s have a conversation about that whole “Even people who don’t agree with us must follow our Holy Book” horseshit that you guys keep spouting.

Ed Johnson is spouting some weapons grade level of lack of self awareness here. He clearly has no comprehension of what the actual pro gay rights side has to say. And he clearly gives no truck to any point of view that doesn’t line up with his own dogmatic and ignorant reading of the Bible. And he’s projecting his own dogmatic bigotry and inability to comprehend those who are different (gays) onto the very people he dogmatically condemns without comprehending.

Slaveholders in 19th century America justified slavery through a literal reading of the Bible, quoting Titus 2:9-10 – “Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything. …” And anti-Semitism was justified by the claims that Jews killed Jesus, such as Matthew 27: 25-26 – “Let his blood be on us and on our children.”

Litfin, from Moody Bible Institute, acknowledged that the Bible once sanctioned slavery, but he said that practice was a “cultural expression” that changed over time. Evangelicals who oppose same-sex marriage by citing the Bible are on more solid ground, he says.

“Marriage is a universal and timeless institution that God set up for maximum human flourishing. He set it up in the first book of the Bible with the story of Adam and Eve. It is consistent throughout the whole Bible. … Marriage is in a different category than those cultural things.”

19th century slaveholders made the exact same argument about slavery, you fucking goon. And no, marriage is not consistent throughout the Bible. The Bible in some parts is perfectly fine with forcing a child into marriage or a man taking multiple wives which he treats like property. There is nothing universal or timeless about the account of marriage in the Bible.

Public jousts over the Bible’s stance on homosexuality rarely change people’s minds.

I guess it depends on what they’re jousting with…

Until the debate over homosexuality is settled – if it ever is – there may be plenty of evangelical Christians who feel as if they are now being forced to stay in the closet.

Carter, the evangelical blogger, says he foresees a day when any church that preaches against homosexuality will be marginalized. Just as many churches now accept divorce, they will accept sexual practices once considered sinful.

“It’s getting to the point,” he says, “where churches are not going to say that any sexual activity is wrong.”

No. There will come a point when they don’t say that homosexuality is wrong (and that point can’t come soon enough). But there’s nothing stopping them from saying rape or pedophilia is wrong.

The fact that evangelicals constantly confound consensual homosexuality with non-consensual forms of sex is revealing of their authoritarian mindset. The notion of an individual consenting means little to them. Sex is good or bad depending on whether or not the authorities tell you it’s good or bad. Whether you consent or not is irrelevant. That’s why you hear some evangelicals attacking consenting gays but defending the brazen rapists in Steubenville. It’s not about consent or personal freedom to them. It’s not about your personal identity or your right to a private life. It’s about God Says So, which always translates to We Say So. It’s about control and power over others for evangelicals. And that’s why they need to be opposed at every turn.

Godly Goldfish

American news media is so pathetic that sometimes I really do wanna puke. It’s not just that they report on bullshit like a woman who claims that god sent her a sign on a goldfish cracker.  It’s that they do so without even a hint of skepticism or critical thought. The news mantra seems to be “Don’t think about it. Don’t question it. Just repeat it.” Woman says god speaks to her through crackers? Okay. Let’s disseminate this to the world exactly as is. And that guy over there having an in depth conversation with an empty KFC bucket while urinating in the street? He seems credible. Let’s just regurgitate whatever words dribble from his mouth whenever it doesn’t have a crack pipe in it.

MELBOURNE, Fla. –

A Brevard County woman found more than she expected while eating a bag of Goldfish crackers, according to Local 6 News partner Florida Today.

Patti Burke eats two or three pounds of Goldfish crackers in a week, one by one, looking for the saltiest of the snacks.

Okay, that can’t be healthy.

But only once has she found a sign from God on a little orange cracker.

The sign said, “Eat something other than goldfish crackers, you crazy bitch!”

“When I picked this one up, I knew he was special,” the Melbourne woman said of her Holy Week discovery. “He had a cross on him, and he had a crown circle up by his head. Something I’ve never seen before out of all the Goldfish I’ve eaten.”

Seeing as you’re basically a walking Goldfish Holocaust, I’ll grant that at least you’re right about it being rare.

So what exactly does this sign from God look like?

Goldfish

And I’m supposed to be impressed with this…why?

“I called Pepperidge Farm and said, ‘Hey, do you have some special promotion going on, I think I’ve got the lucky fish,’” she said. “They called me back and said there’s no way this could have been printed like that in the factory. … They said it sounds like something miraculous happened and we don’t know how it happened.”

There’s no way! Nothing on the machine that makes the goldfish crackers could ever make that shape! It could only be a miracle! There is literally nothing on a machine shaped like–

Pan Head Machine Screw3

Damn it! Stop piddling on my Jesus parade with your silly “facts” and “really obvious shit.”

It should be noted that the Yahoo! News version of this story includes an important caveat which the local Florida affiliate failed to mention:

(That comment has not been confirmed by Pepperidge Farm.)

Yeah, no shit.

And another thing about that Yahoo! News story. It begins thus:

It’s a fishy story, but the woman telling it believes it’s pure gold.

*Vomit*

Journalists, please. Just stop doing this. I seriously don’t understand why you guys are unable to express yourselves without the use of puns. Did you notice above how I didn’t make some sort of pun on the machine having a “screw loose”? Follow my example. Let’s call for a sweeping moratorium on all puns in the news. If you guys are going to report this bullshit so credulously (note that the obvious phillips head screw explanation isn’t even considered in either news report), the least you could do is avoid raping comedy and the English language in the process.

Idahopeless: More Marriage Police

So a while back the marriage police in Oklahoma were shifting their focus to attacking straight people’s marriages, since there was nothing left for them to fuck the gays over with. But the Okie godbots aren’t alone. Now the mashed potatoes between the ears of several Idaho marriage police have developed this bright idea:

BOISE, Idaho (KBOI) – A number of Idaho lawmakers are targeting a topic they say should be taboo on television – premarital sex.

Yes, we must ban premarital sex on TV. Because not depicting it means it’ll stop existing, obviously. As we all know, back in the 50s when you couldn’t even use the word “toilet” on TV,  people didn’t shit.  Instead they excreted digested food as golden Prayer Nuggets that floated immediately up to heaven to redound to the glory of god.

And they’re taking a symbolic stand.

“Symbolic stand” is politicalese for “time-wasting pandering”. Of course they have no hope of actually banning premarital sex on TV, but Idaho has no shortage of sanctimonious fuck-buckets who clinch their shit-speckled assholes any time someone fucks on TV. These cum stains, unfortunately, are often registered to vote and love to be reassured that getting upset about stuff like this is what actual humans do.

Idahoans are also thumbless (they broke ’em off in their asses), and therefore incapable of changing channels. I’m sure they’d appreciate this cynical gesture to the crippling busybody voyeurism that causes them to continue to watch a show that offends them so much.

Lawmakers are against references to premarital sex in dramas, comedies, reality and talk shows as well as advertisements.

The time machine the lawmakers used to travel here from 1955 is yet to be found. Scientists are still baffled at how they could operate any such vehicle without thumbs or cerebral cortices.

“We need to take a stand and stand up for for the morality of what is best for the citizens of Idaho,” said Rep. Darrell Bolz, (R-Caldwell).

I hereby declare that if you cup a boob to which you are not lawfully betrothed, then I shall bravely and mightily relegate you to late night cable! For I am so strong and so brave and so powerful that I cannot abide by even the existence of a TV show that in any way makes me even slightly uncomfortable! Also, you liberals are such pussies! Raarrrr!

The measure that easily passed the house state affairs committee would urge the federal government and the FCC to prohibit the portrayal, even implied, or even the discussion of premarital sex on TV between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

Ah, the FCC. The government’s big FUCK YOU to the first amendment.

It’s important to note that they want even discussing sex outside of marriage to be banned. This is a classic right wing approach to governing: If something doesn’t fit your worldview, then force the entire world to stick their fingers in their ears and go “LALALALALALA”, and the problem vanishes.

But this isn’t mere solipsism or Berkeleyan idealism. The best way to control the cultural dialogue is simply to prevent it from happening altogether. No one can point out how pig-fuckingly stupid your ideas are if the topic can’t even be brought up for discussion.

The measure that’s moving forward is not a bill. Under the rules of the Idaho Legislature, it’s called a Joint Memorial and is simply a symbolic statement.

The statement symbolizes the hundreds of thousands of votes that the people of Idaho flushed down the [censored] by electing these [censored] dribbling [censored] [censored] who waste tax payers’ money on [censored] [censored] [censored] with a goat’s [censored] [censored] and a Roomba.

People KBOI News talked with call the effort a waste of time.

“I think its infringement on freedom of speech, don’t want the government telling me what I can or cannot watch,” Viola Hauck of Boise said.

Uhhh… “Waste of time” is not the same as “violation of the basic freedoms we Americans purportedly hold so dear that our country is said to be founded on them.” Is that previous sentence really supposed to lead into the one that follows? Because I don’t see it.

Supporters say the Idaho Constitution requires government to protect the virtue and purity of the home.

Supporters also would rather you didn’t know what they like to do with a potato and a tube of KY in their oh so pure and virtuous homes.

What else does this dingleberry Darrell Bolz have to say for himself?

HJM 2, sponsored by Rep. Darrell Bolz, R-Caldwell and six GOP cosponsors, cites the Idaho Constitution’s statement that “the first concern of all good government is the virtue and sobriety of the people, and the purity of the home,” and says, “Inappropriate and indecent material is being broadcast more frequently.” The measure also notes that the FCC is charged preventing the broadcast of indecent programming between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., “when children might be watching,” and calls on the federal agency to “resume enforcement of traditional American standards of decency.”

Think of the children! We have no choice but to force our morals on others, because of THE CHILDREN!

Well, those were some rotten potatoes. For dessert, let’s see what those Freedom Loving Patriots who comment over at WingNutDaily have to say about this:

Snooper2 days ago

They need to ban Pornagraphy [sic] and the sex industry in this country once and for all! i’m [sic] tired of watching it. and Yes Bring [sic] back 7th Heaven!

William Wilson3 days ago

Abuot [sic] time! But it’s only a start. Also ban: prostatution, [sic] drugs, murder, and homos.

And bring back 7st Heaven. [sic]

The_Northwesterner William Wilson2 days ago

Ban Islam, Communism and feminism as well and we’ll really be ahead of the game.

wearyconservative1946 The_Northwesterner2 days ago

And illegal mexicans. [sic]

If these guys are the kind of geniuses we get from people watching Seventh Heaven, then I would suck the FSM’s dick with gratitude for the fact that it was cancelled.

But I still wouldn’t have Seventh Heaven banned, even if it turned people into the drooling, retarded illiterates that populate the WND commenting boards. I actually kinda like the First Amendment, in case you haven’t gathered.

Shut up, Texas

There’s nothing an Oklahoman like me loves more than making fun of some stupid, smelly Texans. So when I saw this report on CNN about “The most anti-Obama county in the U.S.”, there’s no way I could resist mocking them until they cry sweet tears of humiliating defeat. Yay!

Freedom for me, but not for thee

I saw Ed Brayton’s brief commentary on this article and had to throw in my two cents. The article is in WorldNutDaily, so you already know it’s gonna be goatballs crazy. But even by WND standards, it’s a whopper. The author, Erik Rush, calls his column “The Other Rush”, which one would think means that he’s happy being second fiddle to America’s most notoriously bloviating gas bag. But it seems rather that he’s trying to one-up Limbaugh in terms of just what a hateful right wing authoritarian he can be.

The title lets you know exactly what you’re in for:

How to disarm the Mainstream Media
Exclusive: Erik Rush wants ‘treasonous’ reporters prosecuted for misuse of free speech

“Misuse” of free speech isn’t very clearly defined in US law, Holmes’ overrated “fire in a crowded theater” standard notwithstanding. Regardless, if the purpose is to “disarm” the “mainstream media”, then it’s pretty clear that whatever this is about, it’s unconstitutional. The First Amendment explicitly protects the press from being disarmed. Kinda like how all those rednecks keep reminding us the Second Amendment does for American gun owners. Except in this case, the media isn’t actually gonna blow anybody’s head off.

Well, it’s Free Speech Week, an annual celebration of Americans’ right to free speech hosted by the Media Institute. Partnering organizations include media organizations across the political spectrum. What’s ironic is the extent to which Americans’ free speech is under assault at present. While this is more evident among the non-liberal, non-secular folks among us, this oppression is just part of a design that will ultimately stifle all of our speech and liberties to varying extents.

I think we need to start a Self Awareness Week. During Self Awareness Week, people will be encouraged to pay attention not only to what they’re doing but also to the context in which it’s done, and to notice things like the fact that you’re publishing this on the internet without any repercussions whatsoever so obviously no one has taken away your free speech you stupid fuck.

Since it is Free Speech Week, I can’t think of a more perfect time to clarify just what free speech is and, more importantly, what it is not.

Translation: I’m gonna make sure free speech only applies to “non-liberal, non-secular folk”.

I’m going to get ahead of myself here and presuppose a Mitt Romney victory in November. This is the only scenario in which America will be able to get her feet back under her, so to speak, and plot a course out of the bog in which President Obama has situated us. An Obama re-election will essentially mean a national bracing for impact, and all bets may be off with regard to preserving our liberties to any meaningful degree.

What liberties, exactly, has Obama taken from you? At least with Bush people could point to specific legislation, the PATRIOT Act, for example, which expressly curtailed certain freedoms. But what has Obama done that affects anyone’s freedom? Usually the “freedom” people accuse Obama of taking away is the “freedom” to take away other freedoms, such as the “right” to deny birth control coverage to an employee. And, as we’ll see, the “freedom” to take away other people’s freedoms is exactly the kind of “freedom” Rush wants to protect.

Yes, many Americans are now cognizant of the fact that progressives have “progressed” America dangerously close to being a Marxist-socialist nation and that we are collectively responsible for not having checked that progress.

Have you ever read the writings of Marx or any other socialist? America is nothing like the society they envisioned. It’s not even close. America is about as Marxist as Honey Boo Boo is talented.

…there are other widespread, organized threats to America’s ongoing concern as a representative republic with guaranteed personal liberties, free speech foremost among them.

Here, I am speaking of the press

Fucking First Amendment! It violates the First Amendment! Or something…

the conglomeration of national broadcast, digital and print media organizations that has been incrementally packed with ideological liberals and socialists, and so has disqualified itself as the impartial government watchdog it once was.

Okay, a few things here. 1.) If you think the media was ever impartial, I’ve got three words for you: William Randolf Hearst. 2.) Being liberal disqualifies you from being a government watchdog? I see what you did there. 3.) The existence of Fox News contradicts all such “liberal mainstream media” demagoguery. 4.) HOW THE FUCK DOES THIS AFFECT YOUR FREE SPEECH? You can’t have free speech so long as liberals have free speech? You do realize that free speech doesn’t mean freedom from being disagreed with.

Oh, wait, we’re operating on the right wing conception of “freedom”, which means “taking freedom from others.”

During my lifetime, I have seen the press become an advance force for social engineering and global socialism.

During my lifetime I’ve seen the press become an ADHD fever dream of sensationalistic headlines and flashy graphics that convey almost no information and perpetuate the “careers” of people like Paris Hilton far beyond their expiration dates. But, yeah, global socialism and all that.

In the matter of this president, the press largely facilitated the ascension of Barack Obama. The instances wherein they have promoted, shielded and aided him are beyond enumeration.

This goes beyond such things as MSNBC’s Chris Matthews and his man crush on Obama – I’m talking about treasonous collusion.

You keep using that word “treason”. I do not think it means what you think it means.

And how exactly is supporting the President “treason”? When people on Fox gushed about Bush, was that treason too?

One particularly scandalous incident occurred during the second presidential debate, when CNN moderator Candy Crowley made an interjection that appeared to have been as spontaneous as Ambassador Chris Stevens’ murder, and which led to a solid point scored for Obama.

Romney said something which was demonstrably false, and she asserted so. I don’t know if it’s flattering or frightening that you see “true” as meaning “a solid point for Obama”.

Most recently, after Mitt Romney brought up Obama’s 2009 “Apology Tour,” the press did their best to support Obama’s claim that this never happened, despite boundless reams of footage that exist chronicling the event.

Well, the footage proves that there was a tour. But it’s the whole “apology tour” thing that the press is denying. And so they should, as the tour had nothing to do with apologies. But when exactly do you plan to get to the part where any of this is treason?

In perhaps the worst recent transgression, on Oct. 21, Phoenix, Ariz., CBS affiliate KPHO ran a lower-third graphic indicating that President Obama had won the Nov. 6 election over Gov. Mitt Romney. A technician’s cute stunt, or subliminal propaganda? In any case, it was technically a prosecutable offense the Federal Election Commission and the Federal Communications Commission should be all over.

What’s that? Some low level techie at a local TV affiliate in Arizona made a dumb mistake? Kill him! Kill him!

You think I’m kidding about the kill him part?

It is improbable that the framers of the Constitution anticipated a situation in which the press were entirely given over to seditious, anti-American policies. If they had, it is likely that their modus operandi would be similar to that for any faction found guilty of high crimes. Trials for treason and the requisite sentences would apply, and I would have no qualms about seeing such sentences executed, no matter how severe.

Still think I’m kidding? Treason is a capital crime, so Rush is in fact saying that people who support liberalism in the media should be killed. No joke.

And as for the “improbable” situation that Rush alludes to, something of this nature, in which people were saying “un-American” things in the press like “Let’s secede from the Union”, did in fact happen to our founders, culminating in the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798. And SOME of them, such as John Adams, did support rounding up dissenters and jailing them. OTHERS, such a Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, opposed the act. The Founders weren’t a homogeneous unit that agreed on everything. They had disagreements just like everybody else. And, in the case of the Alien and Sedition Act, it would surely be ruled unconstitutional today, and it led to numerous problems for the people who supported it. In fact, Jefferson (a Democratic-Republican) pardoned those convicted under the act, and then turned around and used the act against the very Federalists who had originally supported it!

The lesson? As our founders learned, if you support laws to prosecute your enemies for their speech, it won’t be long before that law is turned around and used on you. So don’t support such laws. But learning this lesson requires self awareness and foresight, things which are entirely lacking in today’s right wing.

This is not likely to occur, however. Radio personality and nascent media mogul Glenn Beck…

*Snort* Just a sec. I gotta take a moment to laugh at even the suggestion that Glenn Beck is a “media mogul”. I’m better now, please continue…

…has the intention of putting the establishment press out of business. While I wish him every success, it doesn’t seem likely that he will accomplish this through his organizations alone. In addition to the advent of powerful alternative media sources, I believe it will be necessary to codify – or reaffirm – the nature of crimes against the Constitution and the American people. In this manner, we can thwart the designs not only of the press, but all global socialists operating in America.

Again, what are these crimes, other than the “crimes” of disagreeing with you and (allegedly) supporting a candidate that you don’t support? And who the hell are these global socialists? And what exactly is so threatening about the media?

Let me check up on our Illuminati Lizard People Overlords over at CNN just to see what dastardly plots are unfolding… Oh God. They have a headline on the front page of their website that reads “‘Dancing With The Stars’ Goes Country”. Rush was right! This truly is the end!

Those whose speech and actions impinge upon the God-given rights set forth in the Declaration of Independence and codified in the Constitution are, by definition, excepted from protection under the First Amendment (as well as the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment).

So God gave you the “liberty” of not having other people vocalize opinions that differ from your own? And how much of a fucking pussy are you if you can’t even handle people in the media saying things you disagree with?

The wingnuts, if we took them seriously, would have us believe that America is simultaneously the strongest country on Earth and so fragile that it could be taken down by puffy faced blabberers like Chris Matthews. And that the only way to protect liberty is to take it away. And that we should make government smaller by expanding its ability to control individual expression. And that our unbridled, exploitative capitalist economy is “Marxist” and should be replaced by unbridled, exploitative capitalism. And that Chuck Norris has interesting things to say.

This is a very important concept to consider, because it is based on these presumptions of protected speech and equal protection for all that progressives and socialists have engaged in their predation upon our liberties.

They think they can effect change through free speech! How un-American! Don’t they know that here in America we effect change by shutting down people who suggest we might need to change something?

If these truths can be acknowledged and widely accepted as such (as opposed to progressives’ Orwellian interpretations), then the political disenfranchisement of liberals, progressives, socialists and Marxists can begin in earnest, and in the open.

The right wing sure is getting bold, isn’t it? My guess is that ten years ago WorldNutDaily would never have published such an unambiguous call for all those who oppose them to be silenced by force. Fascism was indecorous back then. But now, as a lovely infographic over at xkcd illustrates, the far right has pushed itself into the mainstream by taking over a big chunk of Congress (especially the House), and as the mainstream becomes more looney, the looneys see this as an opportunity to push the boundaries of “acceptable” lunacy.

The Overton Window has shifted, and we’re now living in a world where right wing authoritarianism can rear its ugly head unabashed and unafraid. Tell rape victims that God wants them to have that child? Sure. Declare that corporations are people? Why not. Call 47% of Americans freeloaders and unapologetically praise the greed of the wealthiest Americans? Of course! Transvaginal ultrasounds? Disenfranchising black voters? More warmongering with Iran after two failed wars? Second Amendment remedies? Women who use birth control are sluts? Football players should be silenced when they express an opinion? Jail people for being liberal in public on the charge of crimes against the constitution? Hey, the sky’s the limit!

Ed (not Brayton) over at Gin and Tacos gave a rather bleak assessment of our current cultural dialogue. While I’m not as pessimistic as he is, I have to agree that we as liberals have failed at something basic. In our misguided attempts to be “fair and balanced”, we’ve let the meaning of terms shift (including the term “fair and balanced”), and we’ve allowed the looniest of the far right lunatics to control the tenor of the debate and say the most ludicrous things without fear of reprisal or scorn.

Of course, I’m not a lunatic like Rush, and under no circumstances should even lunatics being censored just for disagreeing (I say this even when it comes to “hate speech” laws in Canada and Europe that penalize people for spouting homophobic garbage). But allowing free speech should never mean failing to mock and deride people who says stupid or bigoted things. Just look at Rush’s article for an example of how dangerous it is to play the “respect people’s beliefs” gambit. Rush is so emboldened that he now believes it is a CRIME to disagree with him. He’s grown so accustomed to seeing the media put kid gloves on when dealing with creationists, global warming deniers, market dogmatists, homophobes, and all sorts of goatfucking crazy people that he now perceives the mere presence of liberals to be treasonous.

When somebody says something stupid, there should be a chorus of dissenters pointing out how wrong and stupid the claim is. Of course the stupid person will say that being called stupid is a violation of the First Amendment, but the fact that he or she believes this is part of what makes him or her stupid. The people with truly indefensible ideas can’t withstand scrutiny, so their only recourse is to silence those who would contradict them. Bad ideas need external, non-intellectual support. And as long as we have this mentality of “respecting beliefs” no matter how insane or demonstrably false those beliefs are, we are giving them that support, and opening a window for them to completely alter how our nation discusses important issues.

I say let the wingnuts like Rush have their word. But then I’m gonna have my word. And if the wingnuts don’t like it, they can go fuck themselves.