Payback's a bitch

A pro-concentration camp bitch, as it turns out.

I, Turd Blossom, do solemnly swear...

BushCo made a big show of how new WH Chief of Staff Bolten put the smack-down on Rove.

And the press played it for what BushCo insinuated that it was: a shake-up response to low poll numbers.

But was it? Or was it one more step in a slow disappearing act?

Because Rove, you know, has been called again to testify before a grand jury in the Plame case.

Army of Pupness

Time for a mid-week shot of awwwwww.



(via Video Dog)

Gentlemen, start your puns

Oh great. So looking forward to 3 years of "Snow job" and "Snow fall" and "Snow wonder" and "Snow forecast," etc.

"Witch hunt"?

Was CIA official McCarthy fired for being a Democrat?

Are you kidding me? That's like my "to do" list for the day.

According to a Univ. of Minnesota study, atheists are the minority parents are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Americans rate atheists below "Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in 'sharing their vision of American society."

Atheists "are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public," and "offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years."

The study's lead researcher asserts that "today’s atheists play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past—they offer a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society."

My favorite study results: "Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism."

Downtown what?

Gehry's vision for a new downtown LA.

Is it just me, or does this model look like someone dumped their wastebasket on it?

Down with our atheist oppressors!

I know I’m not the only one taking a turn at Melinda Barton’s unintentionally hilarious rant against “atheist whackjobs,” but really, now, how can you not want to, especially when you consider all that is at stake as we atheists attempt to protect the massive power structure we have built in this country? Being part of the political and social Goliath that is American Atheism, it is my duty, really, to stomp down any puny religious David that comes along, slinging rocks of tolerance at our massive structure of secular intolerance and oppression.

The response at Raw Story has apparently been so strong, that the column now includes an editor’s warning at the beginning, begging people to judge the work on its merits, which I, for one, was only too happy to do. The editor also stresses the point that the author is not ripping on all atheists, only the, you know, “atheist whackjobs,” a group that I must now conclude includes me. (The editor later revised his comments on the site.)

Yeah, cheers. It’s not the first time I’ve enjoyed the whackjob moniker.

Below is an excerpt from her column. And then, in between her sentences, I say mean things. Hey, it’s what you come to me for, right?

Outrageous claim number 3: All religion is oppressive.

Notice the wording of the above sentence. Atheist whackjobs believe that all religion is oppressive. How does she know this? Because she has a quote, below. But, read the wording of the quote:

According to The International Manifesto for Atheistic Humanism, for instance, "Religion is oppressive. The act of subjugating human will to "divine will" is oppressive. The practice of obeying clergy, of letting them make our decisions for us, is oppressive and irresponsible."

Ah, so what she means, apparently, is that all religion is oppressive because the structure, the nature, the idea behind religion is inherently oppressive. Okay, I don’t really disagree with that.

This one flies in the face of the evidence. Yes, it's very easy to show many instances of oppression stemming from religion.

Yes, it is easy. Very very very very very very very easy.

However, it is also easy to show many instances in which political and social progress were spearheaded by religious individuals based on the teachings of their particular faiths.

Whoa. She goes off course here. I expected her to argue that those components that comprise an organized religion do not necessarily require that it oppress its believers. Instead, she argues that religious people do good things, sometimes. And those good things are based on their religious beliefs. That’s quite a different point, isn’t it?

No atheist, not even a whackjob like me, would argue that all religious people are evil all the time. Come on. Even Torquemada was nice sometimes, in fact, I hear he was quite fond of his cat.

She goes on:

Study the abolitionist movement or the civil rights movement and you will be hard pressed not to encounter the role of religion in these struggles for liberation.

Yes, no doubt Christians have, at times, looked to Christ as an example of how to behave. If I’m not mistaken, this is one of the main points of Christianity, and considering that, it is a wonder they don’t attempt it more often. Christ, although probably fictitious (oops, just said the word “probably” – how very unwhackjobish of me!) is nevertheless a pretty good role model. Of course, those on the opposite sides of the abolitionist and civil rights movements rationalized their beliefs in the inferiority of African-Americans by quoting the Bible and citing their own Christian teachings as well. But never mind that.

To go beyond Christianity, there is now a movement in Africa that teaches Muslim women how to read the Koran so that they can refute the false claim that that religion demands or even permits female genital mutilation.

Oh dear. Melinda, baby, are you sure you want to include THIS example of how religious people can do good things?

Really?

Because, I’m not sure you’ve thought this one through all the way.

Because female genital mutilation pretty much wouldn’t exist with the Koranamaniacs, see?

Understand?

Let’s move on.

Religion, like any system of belief, is subject to the often contradictory nature of humanity and the tides of history. It is one thing at this moment and in this place and something completely different in another time and place. Oppression or liberation (with a few exceptions) are in the application, not necessarily inherent in the system of belief itself.

Ah, she returns to what should have been her point. But here’s the only sentence she offers as her entire refutation of that Atheist manifesto thing:

For instance, communism may look fine on paper, but in the hands of the Russians post-revolution, it was used to support one of the most oppressive regimes in modern history.

Communism looks fine on paper? Communism looks fine on paper?

Christ, I give up.



(Pharyngula link via Eschaton)

BushCo not interested in intelligence. Yes, I know. It's hardly news.

Former high-level CIA official tells CBS's Ed Bradley about how they managed to turn the Iraqi foreign minister. Then he tells him why BushCo lost interest in their new source.

According to Drumheller, CIA Director George Tenet delivered the news about the Iraqi foreign minister at a high-level meeting at the White House, including the president, the vice president and Secretary of State Rice.

At that meeting, Drumheller says, "They were enthusiastic because they said, they were excited that we had a high-level penetration of Iraqis."

What did this high-level source tell him?

"He told us that they had no active weapons of mass destruction program," says Drumheller.

"So in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam's inner circle that he didn't have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?" Bradley asked.

"Yes," Drumheller replied. He says there was doubt in his mind at all.

"It directly contradicts, though, what the president and his staff were telling us," Bradley remarked.

"The policy was set," Drumheller says. "The war in Iraq was coming. And they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy."

Drumheller expected the White House to ask for more information from the Iraqi foreign minister.

But he says he was taken aback by what happened. "The group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they're no longer interested," Drumheller recalls. "And we said, 'Well, what about the intel?' And they said, 'Well, this isn't about intel anymore. This is about regime change.'"

"And if I understand you correctly, when the White House learned that you had this source from the inner circle of Saddam Hussein, they were thrilled with that," Bradley asked.

"The first we heard, they were. Yes," Drumheller replied.

Once they learned what it was the source had to say — that Saddam Hussein did not have the capability to wage nuclear war or have an active WMD program, Drumheller says, "They stopped being interested in the intelligence."

Snakes on a motherfuckin' plane

Clearly, the people behind Snakes on a Plane are marketing geniuses. You can't swing a dead cat on the internets without hitting some fucking parody of a movie that isn't even out yet.

This one purports to show various famous actors auditioning for the movie, and while it's not as good as the SNL/Kevin Spacey Star Wars audition bit, it does feature a kick-ass Walken impression. And what's more fun than a Walken impression, huh?

You drunk as hell

Thank you, official Grant Miller, for this hilarious link.

So fuck you, Flanagan

Turns out, sex is better in cultures where there is more equality between men and women.

Now go and bake me some cookies, bitch

Look, I ususally don't bother with cunts like Caitlin Flanagan, because

1) like Ann Coulter, the beast feeds on attention, and

2) there's nothing really new going on there.

Flanagan is just Phyllis Schlafly with a slightly, and I do mean slightly, better hairdo.


See what I mean? Flanagan's just 10 years away from a total Schlafly 'do. Mark my words.

And Flanagan's schtick is very similar to Schlafly's as well: Mothers should stay home and raise their children, lest they be damaged. Women should let men be the boss at home, or society will crumble and Jesus will cry.

Case in point. Elle writer Laurie Abraham talks about her interview with Flanagan:

In writer Laurie Abraham's telling of their interview, Abraham arrived at Flanagan's house flustered; back home, her daughter's pet gerbil had just died. Flanagan at first sympathized. Then after their chat turned heated over the question of what's lost when a mother works, she reminded Abraham: "The gerbil's dead and you're here."

"You could hear me gasp on the tape," Abraham said in an interview.

When reminded of the exchange, Flanagan gazed into the middle distance and mused, "Yeah, that was funny."

Yeah, that was funny, bitch. You know what else is funny?

That you, just like Schlafly, are a working mother. You write for the Atlantic and the New Yorker. You're currently on a press junket for your new book, for fuck's sake.

If only you WERE a stay-at-home mom, then we wouldn't have to listen to your hypocritical bile.

So what I'd like to know is, when you were on the other side of the country from your home, doing the Colbert Report last night, who was taking care of your kids?

And did their gerbils survive the ordeal?

Bells On Recommends

Sure, you could whittle away hours this season watching HBO's new series Big Love.

But if you really want to know why it's hard out there for a pimp, why not just rent Hustle and Flow?

Terrence Howard grabs you from the first second of the movie and just never fucking lets you go. Plus, that sure is one sweet-ass Caprice.

Hustle and Flow. Its trials are many, but its rewards are legion.

Tom can cure you of that, you know

From the genius that is Overheard in NY:

Girl #1: Oh my god! I just heard that Katie Holmes had her baby! Katie Holmes had her baby, everyone!

Girl #2: Xenu commands you to shut the fuck up while I'm on the phone with my dealer.


--6th Avenue & West 4th Street

God damn you all to hell!!

Noooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!

Shut up, he explained

WaPo (what is up with them, anyway?) has published an editorial questioning the motives of those retired generals who have called for Rumsfeld's ouster.

The best part? One of the authors is Melvin "I heart secret bombings in Cambodia and Laos" Laird. Yes, the Melvin Laird who tried to excuse the fact that Nixon kept the bombings secret from Congress by characterizing it as an "oversight."

Laird: Shit, dude, did we just totally forget to tell Congress about bombing Cambodia and Laos??

Nixon: Dude! I was so going to tell them! But then the doorbell rang, and Checkers wouldn't stop barking...

Laird: I know dude, I spaced it too.

Laird also famously defended Nixon's lie that the neutrality of Cambodia and Laos had been respected by helpfully explaining that Nixon meant that no ground troops had been sent in.

See, bombs respect neutrality. Ground troops do not respect neutrality.

Any questions? No? Good.

So this guy is really an excellent choice to co-author an article that proposes that it is the generals still in the military, and not those who no longer report to their civilian bosses, who are more credible in their public opinions of those bosses.

Yes, one would think that a simple consideration of the relative motivations of those still employed and those not still employed might come to the conclusion that those military leaders no longer concerned about their jobs or their pensions might be just a tad more inclined to speak the truth. But apparently that kind of simple, non-twisted variety of logic is not Laird logic.

For an example of Laird logic, see the bombing vs. ground troops argument above.

Or for an more recent example of Laird logic, see this bit from his WaPo piece:

We do not advocate a silencing of debate on the war in Iraq. But care must be taken by those experienced officers who had their chance to speak up while on active duty. In speaking out now, they may think they are doing a service by adding to the reasoned debate. But the enemy does not understand or appreciate reasoned public debate. It is perceived as a sign of weakness and lack of resolve.

Hmm. Let's see if we can distill that down a bit:

We do not advocate a silencing of debate on the war in Iraq. So shut up.

See, it's not the fact that our president is pursuing war in Iraq that is killing our troops. It's those damn people who won't stop resisting the rightness and justness of our war! They're the ones that are killing our troops!

You can see that now, can't you? Good.

Wanted: WH Press Sec.

Must be bright, friendly, and willing to take it up the ass for your employers.
Physical requirements include bending and twisting, stonewalling, and poker face.
Those who are nickname-adverse need not apply.
Texans welcome.

Send resume and sample rationale for Iraqi war to krove@whitehouse.gov

Plus, the Piven resemblance is creeping me out

When does "homage" become "stealing"?






















No? Not yet?






































How about now?




Oh, Annie. Annie, if you're hard up for ideas, I got a good one for Vanity Fair's upcoming issue featuring the interview with Rumsfeld:














Whaddya think?


(WWD via Scanner)

Victory

"I take no plesure in being Right in my dark predictions about the fate of our military intervention in the heart of the Muslim world. It is immensely depressing to me. Nobody likes to be betting against the Home team, no matter how hopeless they are.

I have done that, from time to time, and it never fails to leave me fealing guilty and confused, even if I win. "

Hunter S. Thompson

October 13, 2003