Send Tiller's Killer to Gitmo:
The Rude Pundit wants this fucker put into detention at Gitmo, no motherfuckin' questions asked. Yeah, that's right. He wants the guy who assassinated Dr. George Tiller fuckin' hooded, chained, put on a cargo plane with fuckin' headphones on so he can't hear shit, and flown across that little bit of ocean to Cuba, man, our little colony on the bay. And when that cocksucker gets there, the Rude Pundit wants him interrogated, interrogated like a terrorist oughta be interrogated, strippin' off his clothes and pointing and laughing at his scared, tiny cock, slammin' him up against a fake wall over and over and over, slapped in just the prescribed places. Fear up that motherfucker. And who knows what plots he's involved in? Who knows how many radical fascist Christianist sleeper cells are waiting to blow away more abortion providing doctors, destroy their hospitals, attack the mothers themselves? How can you be sure? Because the authorities asked him? Because he said he was acting alone? You trust the killer?
Fuck that. Lay that backwards ass, shack-dwelling mule fucker out. Tie him down and tilt him back. It's time for the cloth and the water, 20 seconds at a time, oh, fuck yeah, 83, 100, 150 times, he'll talk. Shit, he'll tell you how much he's fucked his sister by the time you're done with him. Then put him in solitary, toss his Bible in the john when he pisses you off, slap him around some more.
Or better yet, rendition that Christian fundamentalist killer. Yeah, send him to Syria or Egypt, have them put him in some shithole prison where they can get Ottoman on his ass. Get those motherfuckin' electrodes on his nuts, on his nipples. Whip him with stripped cables. Keep him in a space the size of a grave, letting the rats and the cockroaches crawl all over him. Then send him back to Guantanamo so he can perhaps one day face a tribunal. Or preventive detention. Real indefinite-like, until the abortion battle is settled.
Yeah, you better keep him at Gitmo, because if he's put in Supermax on the mainland, there's no telling how many Christians he'll recruit. Isn't that what they do? Isn't that what their radical preachers tell 'em all they're supposed to do? Evangelize and get people to give up their souls to Jesus, just like this murderer?
Hoo-ee and shee-it, this is the United motherfuckin' States of motherfuckin' America, dipshits, and we abide by the law. Except when we don't.
Sotomayor Drives the GOP Into the Desert:
There's something viscerally thrilling about watching the GOP die not with a bang, but a whimper. In attacking Judge Sonia Sotomayor for her ethnic identity and her education, the Republican Party hasn't just gone over a cliff. Oh, no. They plunged off that craggy fucker in 2004 like Wile E. Coyote on a sputtering rocket, landing on the canyon floor with a cactus shoved up their ass and their bones broken. Sure, they could have dragged themselves to the highway and flagged down some help, but given the choice of heading to the road or the dust, they turned their back on civilization and crawled on shattered knees into the desert. All we're really seeing now is the vultures feeding on their sad, burnt flesh.
The comical bungling of the response to Sotomayor demonstrates not only how out of touch the American right has become, but how they're so enamored of the scent of their own shit that they don't care who steps in the piles they're leaving. So, for instance, if someone like Senator Pat Roberts, who is a motherfucker, sure, but generally not a nutzoid motherfucker, says, as he did, that he opposes Sotomayor because "I think that you should be judging people on their qualifications, whether they will follow the Constitution, and if they do that and they follow the Constitution and they don’t make laws, they simply follow the Constitution and interpret it, I will support them," sure, we could argue whether or not Roberts is correct in his view of Sotomayor.
But the problem is the biting bitch of context. See, when Democrats in the Senate opposed, for instance, Miguel Estrada as a circuit court judge, there weren't dozens of screeching Democratic white men and women running around, saying how Estrada's love of beans might get in the way of his judgment on the bench. The only ones saying racist shit were his supporters, and they were accusing anyone not supporting him of being racist. As Dahlia Lithwick wrote at the time, "In the end, Miguel Estrada's supporters cannot see past his skin color, and his detractors cannot see past his ideology." You can have a conversation about only one of those. (By the way, the Alberto Gonzales confirmation hearing was second verse, same as the first, except Democrats caved.)
So Roberts and any Republican who might want to vote against Sotomayor are automatically lumped in with the titanic assholes who are hogging the microphones of America like a Nebraska twink hogs sailor cock on his first trip to Fleet Week in New York. Roberts is stuck now having to explain how he's not with Rush Limbaugh or Tom Tancredo in thinking that Sotomayor is racist because she said that on discrimination cases, actually having been a victim of discrimination would give you a perspective that being a white male wouldn't. (And, seriously, Tom Fucking Tancredo?)
If they were rational, GOP Senators would be condemning Limbaugh and Gingrich and all the others who have gone loco over Sotomayor. Indeed, something like this ought to demonstrate to the mainstream media that virtually all of the gabbling mongrels on the right are merely appealing to the most hateful, spite-ridden fuckers of our society, and they deserve the exile that's coming. Of course, that presupposes rationality on many levels.
By the way, the other story here is the huge influence of bloggers on the process as it plays out in the media. Out here in Left Blogsylvania, we immediately hit our Nexis bookmarks and went to searching, finding how utterly inane and/or hypocritical the attacks on Sotomayor have been, whether it's digging up the context for her quotes, finding out how Republicans overlooked the very same things she's said when spoken by or about Republican-nominated justices, and more. Everything they put up, we can hit down quickly. It's damned impressive.
(The Rude Pundit's still agnostic about Sotomayor. He doesn't think she'd've been nominated unless Rahm Emmanuel asked her point blank about Roe v. Wade and got the answer he wanted [and if she fucks Emmanuel over, well, remember: he is Shiva, the Destroyer], so there's no use in getting one's panties in a wad about it. Remember how the right was nervous that Roberts might not support the pro-life position? But, with barely even looking, she's a fuck of a lot better than either the Chief Justice or Alito.)
There's something viscerally thrilling about watching the GOP die not with a bang, but a whimper. In attacking Judge Sonia Sotomayor for her ethnic identity and her education, the Republican Party hasn't just gone over a cliff. Oh, no. They plunged off that craggy fucker in 2004 like Wile E. Coyote on a sputtering rocket, landing on the canyon floor with a cactus shoved up their ass and their bones broken. Sure, they could have dragged themselves to the highway and flagged down some help, but given the choice of heading to the road or the dust, they turned their back on civilization and crawled on shattered knees into the desert. All we're really seeing now is the vultures feeding on their sad, burnt flesh.
The comical bungling of the response to Sotomayor demonstrates not only how out of touch the American right has become, but how they're so enamored of the scent of their own shit that they don't care who steps in the piles they're leaving. So, for instance, if someone like Senator Pat Roberts, who is a motherfucker, sure, but generally not a nutzoid motherfucker, says, as he did, that he opposes Sotomayor because "I think that you should be judging people on their qualifications, whether they will follow the Constitution, and if they do that and they follow the Constitution and they don’t make laws, they simply follow the Constitution and interpret it, I will support them," sure, we could argue whether or not Roberts is correct in his view of Sotomayor.
But the problem is the biting bitch of context. See, when Democrats in the Senate opposed, for instance, Miguel Estrada as a circuit court judge, there weren't dozens of screeching Democratic white men and women running around, saying how Estrada's love of beans might get in the way of his judgment on the bench. The only ones saying racist shit were his supporters, and they were accusing anyone not supporting him of being racist. As Dahlia Lithwick wrote at the time, "In the end, Miguel Estrada's supporters cannot see past his skin color, and his detractors cannot see past his ideology." You can have a conversation about only one of those. (By the way, the Alberto Gonzales confirmation hearing was second verse, same as the first, except Democrats caved.)
So Roberts and any Republican who might want to vote against Sotomayor are automatically lumped in with the titanic assholes who are hogging the microphones of America like a Nebraska twink hogs sailor cock on his first trip to Fleet Week in New York. Roberts is stuck now having to explain how he's not with Rush Limbaugh or Tom Tancredo in thinking that Sotomayor is racist because she said that on discrimination cases, actually having been a victim of discrimination would give you a perspective that being a white male wouldn't. (And, seriously, Tom Fucking Tancredo?)
If they were rational, GOP Senators would be condemning Limbaugh and Gingrich and all the others who have gone loco over Sotomayor. Indeed, something like this ought to demonstrate to the mainstream media that virtually all of the gabbling mongrels on the right are merely appealing to the most hateful, spite-ridden fuckers of our society, and they deserve the exile that's coming. Of course, that presupposes rationality on many levels.
By the way, the other story here is the huge influence of bloggers on the process as it plays out in the media. Out here in Left Blogsylvania, we immediately hit our Nexis bookmarks and went to searching, finding how utterly inane and/or hypocritical the attacks on Sotomayor have been, whether it's digging up the context for her quotes, finding out how Republicans overlooked the very same things she's said when spoken by or about Republican-nominated justices, and more. Everything they put up, we can hit down quickly. It's damned impressive.
(The Rude Pundit's still agnostic about Sotomayor. He doesn't think she'd've been nominated unless Rahm Emmanuel asked her point blank about Roe v. Wade and got the answer he wanted [and if she fucks Emmanuel over, well, remember: he is Shiva, the Destroyer], so there's no use in getting one's panties in a wad about it. Remember how the right was nervous that Roberts might not support the pro-life position? But, with barely even looking, she's a fuck of a lot better than either the Chief Justice or Alito.)
Family Research Council: Still Praying That Gays and Lesbians Live in Sin:
Aw, shee-it. You'd think that, since we defeated the forces of eeeevil gayocity in California, we'd get to lay off the prayers for a while, but, no, the work of a member of the Family Research Council's Super-Duper Prayer Team is never done. The Rude Pundit joined the SDPT under a nom de rude a few years ago, and each week he receives his prayerdage orders from the Rev. Pierre Bynum, the FRC's National Prayer Director (which is a title that's not unlike "Leprechaun Wrangler" or "Bigfoot Spotter"). Each email tells us what oughta be pissing us off, what to pray, and where in our worn out Bibles we can find verses that let us see that the Good Lord is straight and on our side. (No links to the FRC today - their site's gone to error Hell.)
For instance, this week, we've been told that our victory in California may be short-lived due to a pending appeal to the federal courts and we gots to stay down on our knees in order to stop gay marriage (even if the gesture seems counterintuitive to the goal). Sez the totally not-gay-sounding Pierre, we should scream, "May God intervene to defend man-woman marriage in California and every state!" (exclamation points quoted since they're the backwards baseball cap of punctuation).
And then Pierre suggests we check out Matthew 18:5-6, which gives us pissy Christ saying, "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." Mostly, these passages are just random and confusing and it's probably best just to leave the Bible out of our prayers.
Still, though, with gay marriage cases and legislation a-brewing to drive the good, godly people of Maine, New Hampshire, and New York into a mad, legalized orgy of same sex knob-bobbing and oyster-diving, the SDPT is told to pray, "May God give his people in each of these states supernatural faith and strength to stand up to pushy homosexual activists and confused politicos whose arms have been twisted. May pro-marriage citizens refuse to back down, knowing that we have God and His eternal laws on our side! May prayer warriors in each state and across the nation arise to win each battle in the heavenlies, knowing that is where the battle must first be won! May God obtain the victory!"
Aw, that makes us hard, when Pierre calls us "prayer warriors," like we're out there on the front lines, fuckin' up some sinners fer Jesus, man, just fuckin' breakin' out our holy AK's of Christ's love and gettin' all blam-blam-blam, fillin' non-Christians with the lead of the blood of the Lamb and then scalpin' them with a crucifix and raping their corpses with our hard nails of worship. Hallelujah, motherfuckers, suck on it.
By the way, the FRC's a bit circumspect when it comes to Judge Sonia Sotomayor. It's kind of a wimpy prayer: "May the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the entire Senate fully examine and obtain an accurate picture of Judge Sotomayor's judicial philosophy for the American public before they vote on her nomination." In other words, "Umm, God, we're confused. A little help down here?"
Aw, shee-it. You'd think that, since we defeated the forces of eeeevil gayocity in California, we'd get to lay off the prayers for a while, but, no, the work of a member of the Family Research Council's Super-Duper Prayer Team is never done. The Rude Pundit joined the SDPT under a nom de rude a few years ago, and each week he receives his prayerdage orders from the Rev. Pierre Bynum, the FRC's National Prayer Director (which is a title that's not unlike "Leprechaun Wrangler" or "Bigfoot Spotter"). Each email tells us what oughta be pissing us off, what to pray, and where in our worn out Bibles we can find verses that let us see that the Good Lord is straight and on our side. (No links to the FRC today - their site's gone to error Hell.)
For instance, this week, we've been told that our victory in California may be short-lived due to a pending appeal to the federal courts and we gots to stay down on our knees in order to stop gay marriage (even if the gesture seems counterintuitive to the goal). Sez the totally not-gay-sounding Pierre, we should scream, "May God intervene to defend man-woman marriage in California and every state!" (exclamation points quoted since they're the backwards baseball cap of punctuation).
And then Pierre suggests we check out Matthew 18:5-6, which gives us pissy Christ saying, "And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea." Mostly, these passages are just random and confusing and it's probably best just to leave the Bible out of our prayers.
Still, though, with gay marriage cases and legislation a-brewing to drive the good, godly people of Maine, New Hampshire, and New York into a mad, legalized orgy of same sex knob-bobbing and oyster-diving, the SDPT is told to pray, "May God give his people in each of these states supernatural faith and strength to stand up to pushy homosexual activists and confused politicos whose arms have been twisted. May pro-marriage citizens refuse to back down, knowing that we have God and His eternal laws on our side! May prayer warriors in each state and across the nation arise to win each battle in the heavenlies, knowing that is where the battle must first be won! May God obtain the victory!"
Aw, that makes us hard, when Pierre calls us "prayer warriors," like we're out there on the front lines, fuckin' up some sinners fer Jesus, man, just fuckin' breakin' out our holy AK's of Christ's love and gettin' all blam-blam-blam, fillin' non-Christians with the lead of the blood of the Lamb and then scalpin' them with a crucifix and raping their corpses with our hard nails of worship. Hallelujah, motherfuckers, suck on it.
By the way, the FRC's a bit circumspect when it comes to Judge Sonia Sotomayor. It's kind of a wimpy prayer: "May the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the entire Senate fully examine and obtain an accurate picture of Judge Sotomayor's judicial philosophy for the American public before they vote on her nomination." In other words, "Umm, God, we're confused. A little help down here?"
In Brief: Sotomayor in 1997: Another Quote to Contradict the Right:
Sigh. This is just gonna keep going, innit? Let's toss another tidbit onto the barbecue.
Under questioning from Senator Strom Thurmond about federal sentencing guidelines during her September 30, 1997 confirmation hearing on her nomination to the Sixth Circuit Court, here is what Judge Sonia Sotomayor said: "Thus far, sir, in the vast majority of cases I have found the guidelines to be very helpful in giving some comfort to me, as a judge, that I am not arbitrarily imposing sentences based on my personal feelings. I believe that congressional sentiment, as reflected in the guidelines, is important, because it permits me, not to impose my personal views, but to let the democracy impose the society's views."
As Glenn Greenwald says, while one quote does not say everything about a nominee, surely all quotes should be considered equally.
Sigh. This is just gonna keep going, innit? Let's toss another tidbit onto the barbecue.
Under questioning from Senator Strom Thurmond about federal sentencing guidelines during her September 30, 1997 confirmation hearing on her nomination to the Sixth Circuit Court, here is what Judge Sonia Sotomayor said: "Thus far, sir, in the vast majority of cases I have found the guidelines to be very helpful in giving some comfort to me, as a judge, that I am not arbitrarily imposing sentences based on my personal feelings. I believe that congressional sentiment, as reflected in the guidelines, is important, because it permits me, not to impose my personal views, but to let the democracy impose the society's views."
As Glenn Greenwald says, while one quote does not say everything about a nominee, surely all quotes should be considered equally.
A Letter from the American Americans for America Regarding Sonia Sotomayor:
A note to our eager members and generous donors:
Even though our organization is devoted to opposing anything that even hints at civil rights and freedoms for anyone not straight, white, Christian, and conservative, and despite the fact that the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court would appear, on its face, to contain every element that would prompt us to go into attack mode, we will not be fighting this nomination. In short, on Sotomayor, we surrender. A good army knows that you sometimes need to retreat to fight another day rather than join every battle, and if there was ever a battle that seemed like Little Big Horn and we're the cavalry, it's this one.
C'mon, look at it from a practical perspective. TV ads are expensive. Fox ain't just giving away time on Hannity. And, really, what do we have to say? That she once ruled against some white firefighters? That she once laughed as she said appeals courts make policy? That she said that being a woman of color from the projects might give her a better perspective on some issues than a rich white guy? Well, sure, we kind of have to agree, don't we? Because we always say that being a Christian gives us a better point of view on policy and legal issues. That means if you're not a Christian, you're not as wise as us. While sometimes blatant, open hypocrisy is fine, but even we can't say it with a straight face.
And look at her rulings on abortion rights. She's sided three times with the pro-life position. Yeah, you can bet that she supports Roe v. Wade, but you can't pin her down. Please don't make us fight this.
We believe you like this organization and all the good it's done. Gays still can't marry in California. Did you see that? That was us. And your state is not going to be invaded by terrorists from Guantanamo any time soon. That was us, too. Also, your child doesn't have to believe the world came from anything but the graceful hand of God because of us. See? We're on top of things. But we're gonna take a pass on Sotomayor because we think that if we go with the full force fight, we'll not only be crushed, but we'll lose membership and money. C'mon: a woman and a Hispanic? Are you nuts?
Yeah, yeah, don't worry. We'll still show up on news networks with a couple of talking points, about how she's a "radical" and "extremist" and "judicial activist," words that we've rendered empty of meaning but sound scary. We want to make sure people know we're still here, although, frankly, that's getting harder and harder to do these days. But we'll update the Facebook page. And our Twitter feed will be vicious. These things don't cost us a dime. Don't you love an organization that not only makes you feel good about your prejudices, but is economical about it? Honestly, though, we just don't have the resources at hand to make much more than a YouTube video, but we couldn't stand to do that only to have someone just take it and put Keyboard Cat at the end.
We're sure you're upset by this. We know you're not used to us stepping back and having insight into how we look to the rest of the public. We're sure you were all ready to get regular emails updating you on how we're losing this fight and how we need more of your money in order to win. Well, we still need your money. You know, who doesn't need more money? But we'll just bank it for a fight when Scalia finally keels over after one too many sausages.
Remember: your donation to American Americans for America is tax deductible.
Sincerely,
A note to our eager members and generous donors:
Even though our organization is devoted to opposing anything that even hints at civil rights and freedoms for anyone not straight, white, Christian, and conservative, and despite the fact that the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court would appear, on its face, to contain every element that would prompt us to go into attack mode, we will not be fighting this nomination. In short, on Sotomayor, we surrender. A good army knows that you sometimes need to retreat to fight another day rather than join every battle, and if there was ever a battle that seemed like Little Big Horn and we're the cavalry, it's this one.
C'mon, look at it from a practical perspective. TV ads are expensive. Fox ain't just giving away time on Hannity. And, really, what do we have to say? That she once ruled against some white firefighters? That she once laughed as she said appeals courts make policy? That she said that being a woman of color from the projects might give her a better perspective on some issues than a rich white guy? Well, sure, we kind of have to agree, don't we? Because we always say that being a Christian gives us a better point of view on policy and legal issues. That means if you're not a Christian, you're not as wise as us. While sometimes blatant, open hypocrisy is fine, but even we can't say it with a straight face.
And look at her rulings on abortion rights. She's sided three times with the pro-life position. Yeah, you can bet that she supports Roe v. Wade, but you can't pin her down. Please don't make us fight this.
We believe you like this organization and all the good it's done. Gays still can't marry in California. Did you see that? That was us. And your state is not going to be invaded by terrorists from Guantanamo any time soon. That was us, too. Also, your child doesn't have to believe the world came from anything but the graceful hand of God because of us. See? We're on top of things. But we're gonna take a pass on Sotomayor because we think that if we go with the full force fight, we'll not only be crushed, but we'll lose membership and money. C'mon: a woman and a Hispanic? Are you nuts?
Yeah, yeah, don't worry. We'll still show up on news networks with a couple of talking points, about how she's a "radical" and "extremist" and "judicial activist," words that we've rendered empty of meaning but sound scary. We want to make sure people know we're still here, although, frankly, that's getting harder and harder to do these days. But we'll update the Facebook page. And our Twitter feed will be vicious. These things don't cost us a dime. Don't you love an organization that not only makes you feel good about your prejudices, but is economical about it? Honestly, though, we just don't have the resources at hand to make much more than a YouTube video, but we couldn't stand to do that only to have someone just take it and put Keyboard Cat at the end.
We're sure you're upset by this. We know you're not used to us stepping back and having insight into how we look to the rest of the public. We're sure you were all ready to get regular emails updating you on how we're losing this fight and how we need more of your money in order to win. Well, we still need your money. You know, who doesn't need more money? But we'll just bank it for a fight when Scalia finally keels over after one too many sausages.
Remember: your donation to American Americans for America is tax deductible.
Sincerely,
Clarence Thomas Had Empathy, Said Bush, Sr.:
Hey, conservative wads of fuck desperate to disparage Sonia Sotomayor, suck the Rude Pundit's empathetic cock:
President George H.W. Bush, announcing the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court on July 1, 1991: "He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor."
Republican Senator John Danforth on Clarence Thomas on July 16, 1991: "His empathy is with the disadvantaged people of this country. He would bring a perspective to the Supreme Court which nobody else brings."
Are we done with this?
Hey, conservative wads of fuck desperate to disparage Sonia Sotomayor, suck the Rude Pundit's empathetic cock:
President George H.W. Bush, announcing the nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court on July 1, 1991: "He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor."
Republican Senator John Danforth on Clarence Thomas on July 16, 1991: "His empathy is with the disadvantaged people of this country. He would bring a perspective to the Supreme Court which nobody else brings."
Are we done with this?
With the Nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, Another Republican Chicken Comes Home to Roost:
Here's what Senate Judiciary Committee member Orrin "Still Crazy After All These Years" Hatch said back in 2005 about the opposition to Alberto Gonzales when the White House counsel was nominated to be Attorney General: "Look, this is not just any nomination. This is a nomination for the Attorney General of the United States of America. This is the first Hispanic ever nominated for that position, or for any of the big four positions in the Cabinet of any President...We work with Hispanic people all over America who are every bit as devoted to our country as any citizen who has ever been in this country. I personally love Hispanic people. Frankly, I know my friends in the Hispanic community, and Hispanic people all over America, are watching this debate, and they are sensing something very unfair going on here."
Yep, Hatch was threatening Democrats with the racist sledgehammer if they would dare vote against the dude who had commissioned the torture memos. He double-dog dared 'em to filibuster Gonzales, saying, "I believe every Hispanic in America who is interested in this country and who understands what is going on here is watching this with a great deal of interest."
Of course, that was way back when, eh? A couple of weeks ago, in response to a remark by Judge Sonia Sotomayor that "the court of appeals is where policy is made," Hatch said that it was "a problem...She would have, I think, a more difficult time if she was nominated because of statements like that...I'm not very happy about judges who will substitute their own policy preferences for what the law really is, who think that they can run the country from the bench when they actually have a limited role." Man, it'd be awesome to live with no self-awareness.
In the February 4, 2005 Washington Times, there was John Cornyn, spittling, "I think people look at - here's an example of a Hispanic born to modest means, and because of his hard work and the love and support of his family, has risen to the top levels of the U.S. government, and there are those who want to create a glass ceiling." By the way, Republicans hoped and prayed that Democrats' opposition to Gonzales would hit them hard in 2006. How'd that work out? Yeah, it turned out that Hispanic-Americans don't much like torture, either. It was the same idiotic calculation that George H.W. Bush made by nominating Clarence Thomas. People of color aren't really the generic retards that the right thinks they are: "Yeah, it's important to have people like me in important positions, but at least make sure they're not motherfuckers first."
Now that Sotomayor has been nominated to the Supreme Court, we can pretty much assume that Republicans won't be giving her a pass on shit what they don't like just because her last name is hard to pronounce. No, no, instead, you can bet that every nutzoid group with access to the internet will be posting sinister videos with evil music about how Sotomayor decided on one case or another.
Maybe they'll pull out quotes, like this one, from a speech she made in 2002 and published in (shudder) the La Raza Law Journal: "No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, 'to judge is an exercise of power' and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states 'there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives - no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,' I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others."
Seems like she's stating the obvious, no? But since Cornyn said today, "She must prove her commitment to impartially deciding cases based on the law, rather than based on her own personal politics, feelings, and preferences," that shit's gonna come up.
Hey, and here's another one that'll chill the goddamned willfully backwards people who believe in the impossible notion of constitutional originalism (and the fucking yahoos who have no idea what that means, but if Rush says it, it must be so), from her 1996 Suffolk University Law Review article "Returning Majesty To The Law and Politics: A Modern Approach," co-written with Nicole A. Gordon: "[C]hange--sometimes radical change--can and does occur in a legal system that serves a society whose social policy itself changes. It is our responsibility to explain to the public how an often unpredictable system of justice is one that serves a productive, civilized, but always evolving, society." A judge having responsibility to the public? Oh, shit.
(By the way, that's a great article that's also about the place of morality for lawyers and the legal system. It'll make your right wing friends' heads explode.)
So gird yer loins. Remember: Republicans have no sense of irony and the attention span of spastic five year-olds. Even when they should just walk away from this battle, they're gonna have to toss some meat to the very few constituencies who still support 'em. And it's gonna be big fun in Confirmationville.
Here's what Senate Judiciary Committee member Orrin "Still Crazy After All These Years" Hatch said back in 2005 about the opposition to Alberto Gonzales when the White House counsel was nominated to be Attorney General: "Look, this is not just any nomination. This is a nomination for the Attorney General of the United States of America. This is the first Hispanic ever nominated for that position, or for any of the big four positions in the Cabinet of any President...We work with Hispanic people all over America who are every bit as devoted to our country as any citizen who has ever been in this country. I personally love Hispanic people. Frankly, I know my friends in the Hispanic community, and Hispanic people all over America, are watching this debate, and they are sensing something very unfair going on here."
Yep, Hatch was threatening Democrats with the racist sledgehammer if they would dare vote against the dude who had commissioned the torture memos. He double-dog dared 'em to filibuster Gonzales, saying, "I believe every Hispanic in America who is interested in this country and who understands what is going on here is watching this with a great deal of interest."
Of course, that was way back when, eh? A couple of weeks ago, in response to a remark by Judge Sonia Sotomayor that "the court of appeals is where policy is made," Hatch said that it was "a problem...She would have, I think, a more difficult time if she was nominated because of statements like that...I'm not very happy about judges who will substitute their own policy preferences for what the law really is, who think that they can run the country from the bench when they actually have a limited role." Man, it'd be awesome to live with no self-awareness.
In the February 4, 2005 Washington Times, there was John Cornyn, spittling, "I think people look at - here's an example of a Hispanic born to modest means, and because of his hard work and the love and support of his family, has risen to the top levels of the U.S. government, and there are those who want to create a glass ceiling." By the way, Republicans hoped and prayed that Democrats' opposition to Gonzales would hit them hard in 2006. How'd that work out? Yeah, it turned out that Hispanic-Americans don't much like torture, either. It was the same idiotic calculation that George H.W. Bush made by nominating Clarence Thomas. People of color aren't really the generic retards that the right thinks they are: "Yeah, it's important to have people like me in important positions, but at least make sure they're not motherfuckers first."
Now that Sotomayor has been nominated to the Supreme Court, we can pretty much assume that Republicans won't be giving her a pass on shit what they don't like just because her last name is hard to pronounce. No, no, instead, you can bet that every nutzoid group with access to the internet will be posting sinister videos with evil music about how Sotomayor decided on one case or another.
Maybe they'll pull out quotes, like this one, from a speech she made in 2002 and published in (shudder) the La Raza Law Journal: "No one person, judge or nominee will speak in a female or people of color voice. I need not remind you that Justice Clarence Thomas represents a part but not the whole of African-American thought on many subjects. Yet, because I accept the proposition that, as Judge Resnik describes it, 'to judge is an exercise of power' and because as, another former law school classmate, Professor Martha Minnow of Harvard Law School, states 'there is no objective stance but only a series of perspectives - no neutrality, no escape from choice in judging,' I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that--it's an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others."
Seems like she's stating the obvious, no? But since Cornyn said today, "She must prove her commitment to impartially deciding cases based on the law, rather than based on her own personal politics, feelings, and preferences," that shit's gonna come up.
Hey, and here's another one that'll chill the goddamned willfully backwards people who believe in the impossible notion of constitutional originalism (and the fucking yahoos who have no idea what that means, but if Rush says it, it must be so), from her 1996 Suffolk University Law Review article "Returning Majesty To The Law and Politics: A Modern Approach," co-written with Nicole A. Gordon: "[C]hange--sometimes radical change--can and does occur in a legal system that serves a society whose social policy itself changes. It is our responsibility to explain to the public how an often unpredictable system of justice is one that serves a productive, civilized, but always evolving, society." A judge having responsibility to the public? Oh, shit.
(By the way, that's a great article that's also about the place of morality for lawyers and the legal system. It'll make your right wing friends' heads explode.)
So gird yer loins. Remember: Republicans have no sense of irony and the attention span of spastic five year-olds. Even when they should just walk away from this battle, they're gonna have to toss some meat to the very few constituencies who still support 'em. And it's gonna be big fun in Confirmationville.
A Poem For Memorial Day:
From former Army soldier Brian Turner's book Here, Bullet:
Eulogy
It happens on a Monday, at 11:20 A.M.,
as tower guards eat sandwiches
and seagulls drift by on the Tigris River.
Prisoners tilt their heads to the west
though burlap sacks and duct tape blind them.
The sound reverberates down concertina coils
the way piano wire thrums when given slack.
And it happens like this, on a blue day of sun,
when Private Miller pulls the trigger
to take brass and fire into his mouth:
the sound lifts the birds up off the water,
a mongoose pauses under the orange trees,
and nothing can stop it now, no matter what
blur of motion surrounds him, no matter what voices
crackle over the radio in static confusion,
because if only for this moment the earth is stilled,
and Private Miller has found what low hush there is
down in the eucalyptus shade, there by the river.
PFC B. Miller
(1980-March 22, 2004)
From former Army soldier Brian Turner's book Here, Bullet:
Eulogy
It happens on a Monday, at 11:20 A.M.,
as tower guards eat sandwiches
and seagulls drift by on the Tigris River.
Prisoners tilt their heads to the west
though burlap sacks and duct tape blind them.
The sound reverberates down concertina coils
the way piano wire thrums when given slack.
And it happens like this, on a blue day of sun,
when Private Miller pulls the trigger
to take brass and fire into his mouth:
the sound lifts the birds up off the water,
a mongoose pauses under the orange trees,
and nothing can stop it now, no matter what
blur of motion surrounds him, no matter what voices
crackle over the radio in static confusion,
because if only for this moment the earth is stilled,
and Private Miller has found what low hush there is
down in the eucalyptus shade, there by the river.
PFC B. Miller
(1980-March 22, 2004)
Join the Rude Fun at Facebook:
While the Rude Pundit still hasn't discovered what's charming or interesting about Twitter (although he's trying), his Facebook page, updated regularly, has become a blast of a place for mucho comments and debate.
And here's a promise: the Rude Pundit will never use his FB status to whine about having a cold or being out of coffee or losing his condom somewhere in there.
So if you're looking for fun this Memorial Day that gives you the illusion that you have friends, join in the party.
While the Rude Pundit still hasn't discovered what's charming or interesting about Twitter (although he's trying), his Facebook page, updated regularly, has become a blast of a place for mucho comments and debate.
And here's a promise: the Rude Pundit will never use his FB status to whine about having a cold or being out of coffee or losing his condom somewhere in there.
So if you're looking for fun this Memorial Day that gives you the illusion that you have friends, join in the party.
Christ Weary of Catholics (Abuse Excuse Edition):
There's times in this life when, no matter how intensely you believe something, you just need to shut the fuck up. Sometimes the decision is easy. Once, the Rude Pundit, in a room with two members of the Israeli military and their anti-Palestinian wristband-wearing American hosts at a party, chose not to bring up a recent missile strike on Gaza. See? Easy decision so he could leave the place with his face and limbs intact. But if you're Bill "Dental Care Sucked in the 1950s" Donohue of the Catholic League (motto: "Bill plus one equals an organization"), you can't help yourself. And when the recent Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse report was released in Ireland, detailing decades of physical and psychological abuse of thousands of Irish children placed in the care of the Catholic Church, well, for Donohue, it was like a leprechaun yanked on his asshole hair.
Donohue released a statement this week, and, truly, it is one of the most breathtakingly vicious things the Rude Pundit's come across in a while. It's rare when you have proof of how ignorant and willfully blind to reality someone is, but why describe when you can have the pure essence of Donohue, a stink so rank that fields of shit dry up when it wafts across them.
First, in his rebuttal to the report, titled "Hysteria Over Irish Clergy Abuse," Donohue blames the victims: "More than 30,000 children, most of them delinquents, passed through one or more of Ireland’s Catholic-run institutions from the 1920s through the 1980s." You get that? Dehumanize the little fuckers, all the better to make 'em ripe for the caning. (No, really, lots of caning naked kids.)
You know, there's really no way to do this other than to just quote most of the goddamn thing. Here's what it sounds like when someone's blowing the Pope while tickling his own prostate with a bloody crucifix:
"Reuters is reporting that 'Irish Priests Beat, Raped Children,' yet the report does not justify this wild and irresponsible claim. Four types of abuse are noted: physical, sexual, neglect and emotional. Physical abuse includes 'being kicked'; neglect includes 'inadequate heating'; and emotional abuse includes 'lack of attachment and affection.' Not nice, to be sure, but hardly draconian, especially given the time line: fully 82 percent of the incidents took place before 1970. As the New York Times noted, 'many of them [are] now more than 70 years old.' And quite frankly, corporal punishment was not exactly unknown in many homes during these times, and this is doubly true when dealing with miscreants.
"Regarding sexual abuse, 'kissing,' and 'non-contact including voyeurism' (e.g., what it labels as 'inappropriate sexual talk') make the grade as constituting sexual abuse. Moreover, one-third of the cases involved 'inappropriate fondling and contact.' None of this is defensible, but none of it qualifies as rape. Rape, on the other hand, constituted 12 percent of the cases. As for the charge that 'Irish Priests' were responsible, some of the abuse was carried out by lay persons, much of it was done by Brothers, and about 12 percent of the abusers were priests (most of whom were not rapists).
"The Irish report suffers from conflating minor instances of abuse with serious ones, thus demeaning the latter. When most people hear of the term abuse, they do not think about being slapped, being chilly, being ignored or, for that matter, having someone stare at you in the shower. They think about rape."
Depressed yet? Then Donohue ends with one of those "No, really I'm rational" statements that's like a kick in the taint: "By cheapening rape, the report demeans the big victims. But, of course, there is a huge market for such distortions, especially when the accused is the Catholic Church." Because, you know, we wouldn't want to distort the endless history of Catholic clergy raping and assaulting children around the world and then having those incidents covered up by the Church leadership. Yeah, you wouldn't want to make that sound bad. And all those school and church figures who groped, force kissed, and beat the kids, you wouldn't want them to feel down because you're lumping them in with rapists.
But, hey, fuck, let's take rape out of the equation just for a moment. It's only 128 girls that happened to. Instead, let's check out some of the other, more quaint treatments of the "miscreants": From Volume III, Chapter 9.40 (interesting how the numbering has a biblical feel), "Forty one (41) witnesses reported being forced to eat, frequently by having their heads held and mouths prised open. Seven (7) witnesses reported being beaten for refusing to eat and eight others reported being physically forced to eat regurgitated food." However harsh people may have been to children pre-1970, the Rude Pundit's pretty sure that forcing a child to eat vomit would have still been frowned upon.
And as for the delightful section where Donohue belittles any sexual abuse that's not rape, "Seventeen (17) witnesses described the manner in which they were made to stand in line without clothes waiting for a bath while being observed by staff and co-residents as sexually abusive. This practice was reported consistently from four Schools for both pre- and post-pubertal residents." (From III.9.82) For more examples, check out Pharyngula.
To add some balance, here's what the British Catholic leader, Rev. Vincent Nichols said: ""It's very distressing and very disturbing and my heart goes out today first of all to those people who will find that their stories are now told in public... Secondly, I think of those in religious orders and some of the clergy in Dublin who have to face these facts from their past which instinctively and quite naturally they'd rather not look at. That takes courage, and also we shouldn't forget that this account today will also overshadow all of the good that they also did." There, Bill, was that so hard?
What a disgusting human being is this old man, this festering boil, this gluttonous, pride-filled, kneejerk apologist, this fame-craving beggar, this Bill Donohue. There are times you shut the fuck up. And if you're too fucking stupid to know when, then you deserve all the scorn and hate that can be heaped upon you. And every time he appears on some loathsome news network craving someone spewing shit all over the screens of America, remember that this is the man who sought to mitigate the crimes of his church, which, one can say without doubt, is par for the course for Catholicism.
There's times in this life when, no matter how intensely you believe something, you just need to shut the fuck up. Sometimes the decision is easy. Once, the Rude Pundit, in a room with two members of the Israeli military and their anti-Palestinian wristband-wearing American hosts at a party, chose not to bring up a recent missile strike on Gaza. See? Easy decision so he could leave the place with his face and limbs intact. But if you're Bill "Dental Care Sucked in the 1950s" Donohue of the Catholic League (motto: "Bill plus one equals an organization"), you can't help yourself. And when the recent Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse report was released in Ireland, detailing decades of physical and psychological abuse of thousands of Irish children placed in the care of the Catholic Church, well, for Donohue, it was like a leprechaun yanked on his asshole hair.
Donohue released a statement this week, and, truly, it is one of the most breathtakingly vicious things the Rude Pundit's come across in a while. It's rare when you have proof of how ignorant and willfully blind to reality someone is, but why describe when you can have the pure essence of Donohue, a stink so rank that fields of shit dry up when it wafts across them.
First, in his rebuttal to the report, titled "Hysteria Over Irish Clergy Abuse," Donohue blames the victims: "More than 30,000 children, most of them delinquents, passed through one or more of Ireland’s Catholic-run institutions from the 1920s through the 1980s." You get that? Dehumanize the little fuckers, all the better to make 'em ripe for the caning. (No, really, lots of caning naked kids.)
You know, there's really no way to do this other than to just quote most of the goddamn thing. Here's what it sounds like when someone's blowing the Pope while tickling his own prostate with a bloody crucifix:
"Reuters is reporting that 'Irish Priests Beat, Raped Children,' yet the report does not justify this wild and irresponsible claim. Four types of abuse are noted: physical, sexual, neglect and emotional. Physical abuse includes 'being kicked'; neglect includes 'inadequate heating'; and emotional abuse includes 'lack of attachment and affection.' Not nice, to be sure, but hardly draconian, especially given the time line: fully 82 percent of the incidents took place before 1970. As the New York Times noted, 'many of them [are] now more than 70 years old.' And quite frankly, corporal punishment was not exactly unknown in many homes during these times, and this is doubly true when dealing with miscreants.
"Regarding sexual abuse, 'kissing,' and 'non-contact including voyeurism' (e.g., what it labels as 'inappropriate sexual talk') make the grade as constituting sexual abuse. Moreover, one-third of the cases involved 'inappropriate fondling and contact.' None of this is defensible, but none of it qualifies as rape. Rape, on the other hand, constituted 12 percent of the cases. As for the charge that 'Irish Priests' were responsible, some of the abuse was carried out by lay persons, much of it was done by Brothers, and about 12 percent of the abusers were priests (most of whom were not rapists).
"The Irish report suffers from conflating minor instances of abuse with serious ones, thus demeaning the latter. When most people hear of the term abuse, they do not think about being slapped, being chilly, being ignored or, for that matter, having someone stare at you in the shower. They think about rape."
Depressed yet? Then Donohue ends with one of those "No, really I'm rational" statements that's like a kick in the taint: "By cheapening rape, the report demeans the big victims. But, of course, there is a huge market for such distortions, especially when the accused is the Catholic Church." Because, you know, we wouldn't want to distort the endless history of Catholic clergy raping and assaulting children around the world and then having those incidents covered up by the Church leadership. Yeah, you wouldn't want to make that sound bad. And all those school and church figures who groped, force kissed, and beat the kids, you wouldn't want them to feel down because you're lumping them in with rapists.
But, hey, fuck, let's take rape out of the equation just for a moment. It's only 128 girls that happened to. Instead, let's check out some of the other, more quaint treatments of the "miscreants": From Volume III, Chapter 9.40 (interesting how the numbering has a biblical feel), "Forty one (41) witnesses reported being forced to eat, frequently by having their heads held and mouths prised open. Seven (7) witnesses reported being beaten for refusing to eat and eight others reported being physically forced to eat regurgitated food." However harsh people may have been to children pre-1970, the Rude Pundit's pretty sure that forcing a child to eat vomit would have still been frowned upon.
And as for the delightful section where Donohue belittles any sexual abuse that's not rape, "Seventeen (17) witnesses described the manner in which they were made to stand in line without clothes waiting for a bath while being observed by staff and co-residents as sexually abusive. This practice was reported consistently from four Schools for both pre- and post-pubertal residents." (From III.9.82) For more examples, check out Pharyngula.
To add some balance, here's what the British Catholic leader, Rev. Vincent Nichols said: ""It's very distressing and very disturbing and my heart goes out today first of all to those people who will find that their stories are now told in public... Secondly, I think of those in religious orders and some of the clergy in Dublin who have to face these facts from their past which instinctively and quite naturally they'd rather not look at. That takes courage, and also we shouldn't forget that this account today will also overshadow all of the good that they also did." There, Bill, was that so hard?
What a disgusting human being is this old man, this festering boil, this gluttonous, pride-filled, kneejerk apologist, this fame-craving beggar, this Bill Donohue. There are times you shut the fuck up. And if you're too fucking stupid to know when, then you deserve all the scorn and hate that can be heaped upon you. And every time he appears on some loathsome news network craving someone spewing shit all over the screens of America, remember that this is the man who sought to mitigate the crimes of his church, which, one can say without doubt, is par for the course for Catholicism.
A Few Notes Regarding Today's Speech(es):
Sure, the Rude Pundit's biased, but, c'mon, no matter what side you're on, you gotta admit: President Barack Obama knows how to nut up. Attacked on the left and right for what both perceived as weakness either on his promises of change in Bush policies or on security itself, Obama spoke today at the National Archives to say, more or less, "Stop acting like the other guy is still President, you poor, traumatized bastards."
On one level, Obama's speech was a rhetorical technique from his campaign: when people are talking shit about you, confront the shit directly. So there he was, slapping down the bases for torture, for Gitmo, for the prosecution of the retarded "war on terror," saying that he didn't run the car off the cliff, but he sure as fuck is gonna pick up the glass and mop up the blood: "In other words, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place." And then he laid out a framework for understanding what has to happen on the road to closing Gitmo. He treated us like grown-ups, like he wasn't reading My Pet Goat to grade school students, but teaching De Tocqueville to college seniors.
But on another level, what Obama was doing was removing the unitary executive idea from the center of the government. Said the President, "[W]e are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability." He voiced, again and again, that things are different now; essentially, what he's saying is "The Bush administration made the other branches into accessories, cock rings to enhance its fucking. But they are cocks that can stand and fuck on their own. Grow the fuck up, Congress." And so he repeatedly insisted that Congress and the courts exercise their oversight responsibilities. He, in essence, set them free from the shackles Bush and Cheney had clasped them in. Obama actually respects the nation and, as he pointed out, the will of the people in the last election. (Obama went out of his way a bit to give his perspective on Gitmo and torture bipartisan street cred.)
Most stunning, though, was his assertion of how the government should deal with the crimes of the past administration, and it ain't a Truth Commission: "I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws."
Do you get that? President Obama is telling the Congress not to be punk ass bitches about investigating, that the legislative branch should keep the executive branch honest, that punishing crimes is what we're supposed to do. Obama used this speech on national security to say that the way to be safe is to defend what makes America American and for everyone to do their fucking jobs.
Finally, he kicked Bush and Cheney in their taints at the close of his speech: "We will not be safe if we see national security as a wedge that divides America - it can and must be a cause that unites us as one people, as one nation. We have done so before in times that were more perilous than ours." Now that's how to stand tall and say, "C'mon, fuck with me."
Cheney, Briefly: Dick Cheney, wheezing his way through his speech, opened by talking about how he was cowering in a bunker on 9/11 and his horribly scarred psyche changed how he thought about the world. The fact that Cheney admitted that he was a PTSD sufferer and that's how he responded to the world pretty much negates everything he said after. Fuck him. He's not worthy to be called Cthulu or Satan anymore.
Sure, the Rude Pundit's biased, but, c'mon, no matter what side you're on, you gotta admit: President Barack Obama knows how to nut up. Attacked on the left and right for what both perceived as weakness either on his promises of change in Bush policies or on security itself, Obama spoke today at the National Archives to say, more or less, "Stop acting like the other guy is still President, you poor, traumatized bastards."
On one level, Obama's speech was a rhetorical technique from his campaign: when people are talking shit about you, confront the shit directly. So there he was, slapping down the bases for torture, for Gitmo, for the prosecution of the retarded "war on terror," saying that he didn't run the car off the cliff, but he sure as fuck is gonna pick up the glass and mop up the blood: "In other words, the problem of what to do with Guantanamo detainees was not caused by my decision to close the facility; the problem exists because of the decision to open Guantanamo in the first place." And then he laid out a framework for understanding what has to happen on the road to closing Gitmo. He treated us like grown-ups, like he wasn't reading My Pet Goat to grade school students, but teaching De Tocqueville to college seniors.
But on another level, what Obama was doing was removing the unitary executive idea from the center of the government. Said the President, "[W]e are indeed at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates. We do need to update our institutions to deal with this threat. But we must do so with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process; in checks and balances and accountability." He voiced, again and again, that things are different now; essentially, what he's saying is "The Bush administration made the other branches into accessories, cock rings to enhance its fucking. But they are cocks that can stand and fuck on their own. Grow the fuck up, Congress." And so he repeatedly insisted that Congress and the courts exercise their oversight responsibilities. He, in essence, set them free from the shackles Bush and Cheney had clasped them in. Obama actually respects the nation and, as he pointed out, the will of the people in the last election. (Obama went out of his way a bit to give his perspective on Gitmo and torture bipartisan street cred.)
Most stunning, though, was his assertion of how the government should deal with the crimes of the past administration, and it ain't a Truth Commission: "I have opposed the creation of such a Commission because I believe that our existing democratic institutions are strong enough to deliver accountability. The Congress can review abuses of our values, and there are ongoing inquiries by the Congress into matters like enhanced interrogation techniques. The Department of Justice and our courts can work through and punish any violations of our laws."
Do you get that? President Obama is telling the Congress not to be punk ass bitches about investigating, that the legislative branch should keep the executive branch honest, that punishing crimes is what we're supposed to do. Obama used this speech on national security to say that the way to be safe is to defend what makes America American and for everyone to do their fucking jobs.
Finally, he kicked Bush and Cheney in their taints at the close of his speech: "We will not be safe if we see national security as a wedge that divides America - it can and must be a cause that unites us as one people, as one nation. We have done so before in times that were more perilous than ours." Now that's how to stand tall and say, "C'mon, fuck with me."
Cheney, Briefly: Dick Cheney, wheezing his way through his speech, opened by talking about how he was cowering in a bunker on 9/11 and his horribly scarred psyche changed how he thought about the world. The fact that Cheney admitted that he was a PTSD sufferer and that's how he responded to the world pretty much negates everything he said after. Fuck him. He's not worthy to be called Cthulu or Satan anymore.
Gitmo Detainees in America: What We Should Really Fear:
Maybe the Rude Pundit's naive, but he's simply not afraid of a bunch of mostly former cave-dwelling, goatherding hole-shitters who joined up with the wrong warlord at the wrong time and who have been driven incoherently mad by isolation, torture, and imprisonment. No, in the Big Book of Shit What Keeps Him Up at Night, the Gitmo detainees don't even make an appearance. The Rude Pundit's just not feeling threatened by people who might just get scared by the sight of an iPhone. And he think anyone who is actually scared, and not just in it for the fear-up-the-yokels vote, is pretty much a big, wet pussy.
He's also not even remotely concerned about moving the Gitmomates to the United States, trying them, freeing the ones who didn't do shit, and putting the others in prison. How many fucking successful prison breaks have there been in this country? Like, in the last couple of decades? Where they didn't recapture the escapees almost immediately? C'mon, name one that's not a Shawshank fantasy in your brain.
And since those, to be generous, couple of dozen of the couple of hundred remaining at Spa Guantanamo who could probably be convicted of crimes would be held in our most inhuman of human spaces, the Supermax prison, is there actually any chance at all they'd escape? If you think they would, then you're living in a movie, motherfucker, and there's no talking to you. You know what it's like in Supermax, the one in Colorado, where a genuine hardcore terrorist badass like Ramzi Yousef lives?
Check this shit out: "Large cables are strung above the basketball courts and track for no apparent reason. 'Those are helicopter deterrents,' a corrections official explains. 'We are not really worried about a chopper escape attempt, but you've got to be prepared.'" But, sure, if you're worried, build a fucking moat and fill it with robot sharks. However, if we've learned anything from shitty flicks, the robot sharks will run amok and need to be taken out by Dolph Lundgren. The prisoners? Sure, they may shank each other, but, hey, fuck 'em, right? They be driven insane by 23-hour a day isolation. They may more or less be living in Gitmos on the continent. But this ain't about the general failure of the American penal system or the blatant racism that inflicts this whole discussion. (And, you know, if these were a bunch of white guys from Europe at Gitmo, wouldn't this have been over years ago?)
No, this is about our punk ass politicians.
Because, let us say, and why not, that we transfer the Gitmoers to Supermax. And let us say that one of the guys that's really a terrorist escapes. And let us continue to say the escaped terrorist goes right to Denver, traversing a hundred miles of mountains to do it, and hooks up with a terror cell. And let us say, in this increasingly remotest of remote scenarios, that the escaped terrorist gets a dirty bomb, you know, one of those mythical suitcase nukes, and he blows it up in a mall in Denver suburbs.
Now, how many of those affected by the escaped terrorist's actions will need medical insurance to cover their injuries? (And this doesn't have to have been committed by a former Gitmo detainee.) Remember: we're not just talking about the immediate impact. We're talking about the radiation poisoning lasting, potentially, for years. What about the families who lose the spouse, the partner, the mother or father whose job provides medical insurance for the kids? Are they bereft of health care now? 9/11 families didn't get free health care for life (although some companies provided lower-cost premiums - no, really). Ripple effects, motherfuckers, ripple effects. Now there's a real, tangible fear.
In other words, the Rude Pundit doesn't give a grunting pig fuck about potential risks in bringing Gitmoians to the United States. The short-sighted Democrats who put the kibosh on the funding for closing the camp forget that that act is actually about restoring the United States's standing in the world.
But when some craven Republican he-whore exclaims that about the Gitmo detainees "They get better health care than the average American citizen does" and then proudly stands in the way of Americans getting health care coverage, well, what's the real threat to the United States? What and who do we really need to be afraid of? What's an actual national security issue?
Maybe the Rude Pundit's naive, but he's simply not afraid of a bunch of mostly former cave-dwelling, goatherding hole-shitters who joined up with the wrong warlord at the wrong time and who have been driven incoherently mad by isolation, torture, and imprisonment. No, in the Big Book of Shit What Keeps Him Up at Night, the Gitmo detainees don't even make an appearance. The Rude Pundit's just not feeling threatened by people who might just get scared by the sight of an iPhone. And he think anyone who is actually scared, and not just in it for the fear-up-the-yokels vote, is pretty much a big, wet pussy.
He's also not even remotely concerned about moving the Gitmomates to the United States, trying them, freeing the ones who didn't do shit, and putting the others in prison. How many fucking successful prison breaks have there been in this country? Like, in the last couple of decades? Where they didn't recapture the escapees almost immediately? C'mon, name one that's not a Shawshank fantasy in your brain.
And since those, to be generous, couple of dozen of the couple of hundred remaining at Spa Guantanamo who could probably be convicted of crimes would be held in our most inhuman of human spaces, the Supermax prison, is there actually any chance at all they'd escape? If you think they would, then you're living in a movie, motherfucker, and there's no talking to you. You know what it's like in Supermax, the one in Colorado, where a genuine hardcore terrorist badass like Ramzi Yousef lives?
Check this shit out: "Large cables are strung above the basketball courts and track for no apparent reason. 'Those are helicopter deterrents,' a corrections official explains. 'We are not really worried about a chopper escape attempt, but you've got to be prepared.'" But, sure, if you're worried, build a fucking moat and fill it with robot sharks. However, if we've learned anything from shitty flicks, the robot sharks will run amok and need to be taken out by Dolph Lundgren. The prisoners? Sure, they may shank each other, but, hey, fuck 'em, right? They be driven insane by 23-hour a day isolation. They may more or less be living in Gitmos on the continent. But this ain't about the general failure of the American penal system or the blatant racism that inflicts this whole discussion. (And, you know, if these were a bunch of white guys from Europe at Gitmo, wouldn't this have been over years ago?)
No, this is about our punk ass politicians.
Because, let us say, and why not, that we transfer the Gitmoers to Supermax. And let us say that one of the guys that's really a terrorist escapes. And let us continue to say the escaped terrorist goes right to Denver, traversing a hundred miles of mountains to do it, and hooks up with a terror cell. And let us say, in this increasingly remotest of remote scenarios, that the escaped terrorist gets a dirty bomb, you know, one of those mythical suitcase nukes, and he blows it up in a mall in Denver suburbs.
Now, how many of those affected by the escaped terrorist's actions will need medical insurance to cover their injuries? (And this doesn't have to have been committed by a former Gitmo detainee.) Remember: we're not just talking about the immediate impact. We're talking about the radiation poisoning lasting, potentially, for years. What about the families who lose the spouse, the partner, the mother or father whose job provides medical insurance for the kids? Are they bereft of health care now? 9/11 families didn't get free health care for life (although some companies provided lower-cost premiums - no, really). Ripple effects, motherfuckers, ripple effects. Now there's a real, tangible fear.
In other words, the Rude Pundit doesn't give a grunting pig fuck about potential risks in bringing Gitmoians to the United States. The short-sighted Democrats who put the kibosh on the funding for closing the camp forget that that act is actually about restoring the United States's standing in the world.
But when some craven Republican he-whore exclaims that about the Gitmo detainees "They get better health care than the average American citizen does" and then proudly stands in the way of Americans getting health care coverage, well, what's the real threat to the United States? What and who do we really need to be afraid of? What's an actual national security issue?
When Newt Gingrich Was Condemning the FBI, It Was A-Ok:
In a confluence of incompetence and evil the likes of which hasn't been seen since, well, probably this year's Republican National Convention, former Speaker of the House and possible Future of the GOP Newt Gingrich appeared on Bill O'Reilly's Fox "news" show. It was not unlike watching two drunk guys stare at themselves in a mirror as they perform self-fellatio and then insist that they're totally not gay.
Gingrich was there to sing his new single, "Boom Boom Pelosi," wherein he says, "Well, the first thing is, you know, all around the world, the young men and women who are risking their lives today trying to protect this country. And now they've got to look over their shoulder and wonder whether the third ranking politician in the country is going to throw them away. You know, she's not just a member of the House. She's in the Constitution. The Speaker of the House is the third ranking person to be president of the United States. She's a potential commander and chief. And she defamed, she smeared every single person that works for the CIA everywhere in the world. And I think that undermines their morale."
That would be because Pelosi made the seemingly obvious statement that the CIA misleads Congress "all the time." Um, they're spies. Misleading is part of what they do.
Still, this would be the same Newt Gingrich who, when he was a member of Congress and Speaker of the House back in the mid-1990s (a time that really seems a century ago, although if it were, Gingrich would presumably be dead now), viciously savaged the FBI and its director, Louis Freeh, over a variety of events, including the raid on Ruby Ridge, the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco and the bullshit -gates, Travel and File.
Indeed, Gingrich not only held up an anti-terror bill President Bill Clinton wanted in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, but he also said on Meet the Press in May 1995, "We have to understand that there is, in rural America, a genuine -- particularly in the West -- a genuine fear of the Federal Government and of Washington, D.C., as a place that doesn't understand their way of life and doesn't understand their values." Gingrich pointed directly to actions by the FBI as to why such "fear" existed. And he supported hearings on what happened at Waco, two years after the fact.
In other words, titanic asshole Newt Gingrich thinks that if Nancy Pelosi says the CIA misleads Congress, it doesn't mean that there should be hearings into the substance of what she's alleging. It means she should resign as Speaker of the House. But when he was Speaker of the House and saying to the media that the FBI was incompetent and a threat to Americans, it didn't mean he was undermining the FBI agents' morale and he should resign. No, then it meant that Congress ought to investigate.
Could someone, somewhere tell this tubby, hypocritical fucker to go the fuck away? Wait, no. Instead, please let him run for president in 2012.
In a confluence of incompetence and evil the likes of which hasn't been seen since, well, probably this year's Republican National Convention, former Speaker of the House and possible Future of the GOP Newt Gingrich appeared on Bill O'Reilly's Fox "news" show. It was not unlike watching two drunk guys stare at themselves in a mirror as they perform self-fellatio and then insist that they're totally not gay.
Gingrich was there to sing his new single, "Boom Boom Pelosi," wherein he says, "Well, the first thing is, you know, all around the world, the young men and women who are risking their lives today trying to protect this country. And now they've got to look over their shoulder and wonder whether the third ranking politician in the country is going to throw them away. You know, she's not just a member of the House. She's in the Constitution. The Speaker of the House is the third ranking person to be president of the United States. She's a potential commander and chief. And she defamed, she smeared every single person that works for the CIA everywhere in the world. And I think that undermines their morale."
That would be because Pelosi made the seemingly obvious statement that the CIA misleads Congress "all the time." Um, they're spies. Misleading is part of what they do.
Still, this would be the same Newt Gingrich who, when he was a member of Congress and Speaker of the House back in the mid-1990s (a time that really seems a century ago, although if it were, Gingrich would presumably be dead now), viciously savaged the FBI and its director, Louis Freeh, over a variety of events, including the raid on Ruby Ridge, the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco and the bullshit -gates, Travel and File.
Indeed, Gingrich not only held up an anti-terror bill President Bill Clinton wanted in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, but he also said on Meet the Press in May 1995, "We have to understand that there is, in rural America, a genuine -- particularly in the West -- a genuine fear of the Federal Government and of Washington, D.C., as a place that doesn't understand their way of life and doesn't understand their values." Gingrich pointed directly to actions by the FBI as to why such "fear" existed. And he supported hearings on what happened at Waco, two years after the fact.
In other words, titanic asshole Newt Gingrich thinks that if Nancy Pelosi says the CIA misleads Congress, it doesn't mean that there should be hearings into the substance of what she's alleging. It means she should resign as Speaker of the House. But when he was Speaker of the House and saying to the media that the FBI was incompetent and a threat to Americans, it didn't mean he was undermining the FBI agents' morale and he should resign. No, then it meant that Congress ought to investigate.
Could someone, somewhere tell this tubby, hypocritical fucker to go the fuck away? Wait, no. Instead, please let him run for president in 2012.
The Rude Pundit in New Shoot the Messenger Video::
From Daily Show creator Lizz Winstead and the decadently demented minds at Shoot the Messenger, an ad for a new service:
The Rude Pundit's on "bass."
The lyrics:
If enhanced interrogation was standard policy
Why aren’t the guys who made it legal sittin' here with me?
They told me waterboarding could get a man to speak
But it turns out asking questions is the pref'rable technique
Should’ve gone to Free Torture Report.com
I woulda learned we shouldn’t use techniques from Vietnam
You’ll get a daily email ‘bout what’s torture and what ain’t
Then we won't look like assholes who don't understand restraint
(Enjoy. And spread the love like a virus.)
From Daily Show creator Lizz Winstead and the decadently demented minds at Shoot the Messenger, an ad for a new service:
The Rude Pundit's on "bass."
The lyrics:
If enhanced interrogation was standard policy
Why aren’t the guys who made it legal sittin' here with me?
They told me waterboarding could get a man to speak
But it turns out asking questions is the pref'rable technique
Should’ve gone to Free Torture Report.com
I woulda learned we shouldn’t use techniques from Vietnam
You’ll get a daily email ‘bout what’s torture and what ain’t
Then we won't look like assholes who don't understand restraint
(Enjoy. And spread the love like a virus.)
A Photo That, If the Context Was Right, Would Make the Rude Pundit Break Out the Cocaine and Moet:
That grim-looking fucker behind the netting there is former Vice President Dick Cheney, and, no, he's not in a Rudolph Hess-like internment camp. He's taking a break from his "Angels and Demons" tour of talk shows to attend yesterday's baseball game between the Philadelphia Phillies and the Washington Nationals.
No doubt the man is contemplating all his sins as he stares at the mock fence, wondering how he become so bereft of humanity, that he perhaps deserves to be surrounded by gates and bars and razor wire, with a tattoo that reads "Property of the Aryan Brotherhood" on his right ass cheek. Yes, the weight of all that he has done must push heavily on him every day and every night, and perhaps he thinks he does not need an actual fence to punish him for he is imprisoned by the pain in his soul.
Nah. Probably just has to take a gigantic dump after sucking down two chili cheese dogs and a bucket of beer, and he's wondering if he can get the skin of a dead Afghani villager to use to wipe his ass. Only the best for the man.
That grim-looking fucker behind the netting there is former Vice President Dick Cheney, and, no, he's not in a Rudolph Hess-like internment camp. He's taking a break from his "Angels and Demons" tour of talk shows to attend yesterday's baseball game between the Philadelphia Phillies and the Washington Nationals.
No doubt the man is contemplating all his sins as he stares at the mock fence, wondering how he become so bereft of humanity, that he perhaps deserves to be surrounded by gates and bars and razor wire, with a tattoo that reads "Property of the Aryan Brotherhood" on his right ass cheek. Yes, the weight of all that he has done must push heavily on him every day and every night, and perhaps he thinks he does not need an actual fence to punish him for he is imprisoned by the pain in his soul.
Nah. Probably just has to take a gigantic dump after sucking down two chili cheese dogs and a bucket of beer, and he's wondering if he can get the skin of a dead Afghani villager to use to wipe his ass. Only the best for the man.
The Little Blog That Hates O'Reilly Needs Your Help:
So Steve from the blog O'Reilly Sucks has been plugging away for a few years now, watching Bill O'Reilly all the time to extensively document the idiocies and viciously attack him on a daily basis. It's been and continues to be a good read, and how Steve hasn't had acid eat away his stomach lining by now is probably some kind of freakish genetic miracle.
Now, as with so many of us in this economy in the shitter, the man could use a little cash assistance in maintaining the blog. Think of it like skipping Starbucks for a day and grabbing yer joe at the local place that roasts its own beans.
Head on over to Steve's joint, enjoy the view, and toss some bills and coins into the tip jar.
So Steve from the blog O'Reilly Sucks has been plugging away for a few years now, watching Bill O'Reilly all the time to extensively document the idiocies and viciously attack him on a daily basis. It's been and continues to be a good read, and how Steve hasn't had acid eat away his stomach lining by now is probably some kind of freakish genetic miracle.
Now, as with so many of us in this economy in the shitter, the man could use a little cash assistance in maintaining the blog. Think of it like skipping Starbucks for a day and grabbing yer joe at the local place that roasts its own beans.
Head on over to Steve's joint, enjoy the view, and toss some bills and coins into the tip jar.
Nancy Pelosi Restores the Natural Order of Things:
Thank Nancy Pelosi for at least one thing: she's making it okay to hate the CIA again. Oh, sure, we were all giddy when, trying to demonstrate that they hadn't been neutered completely by Dick Cheney squeezing their balls to get info, the agency leaked classified info that it had put contrary footnotes in documents about evidence of WMDs in Iraq. And, man, we liberals were all about how splendiferous our magnificent intelligence agents were when Karl Rove outed Valerie Plame. It's so very sweet when you and some guy you hate are standing in a room with a starved tiger and the tiger eats the other guy. But you're still in that room, man, and that tiger is gonna get hungry again. However insidious and vindictive and destructive and, you know, criminal Karl Rove (among others) was about Plame, however deliberately manipulated or unconscionably dumb the CIA was about weapons in Iraq, it was odd, to say the least, to see the left praising and defending the very government entity that had been the cause of so, so many of the very clusterfucks that have plagued this country.
You want a list? Let's take the beginner's tour. For shit and giggles, start with the Vietnam War, work your way through Central and South America, pause to wave at the Contras and the graves of Pinochet's disappeared, take a walk through the School of the Americas, jaunt over to Afghanistan to meet the Mujihadeen, check out the failure to predict the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union, shake hands with Saddam Hussein, and then look over the many, many documents that did say there were WMDs in Iraq. And that's just the start, before we even get to the current "enhanced interrogation" scandal.
So when Speaker of the House Pelosi, finally sick of all the bullshit swirling around about when she was or wasn't briefed about waterboarding, said that the CIA lied to her in 2002 and that "They mislead us all the time," well, it was one of the ballsiest things we've heard from a top Democrat in Congress for a long damn time. Pelosi upset the motherfuckin' apple cart by breaching the ass-kissing we're supposed to be giving anyone who is remotely connected with fighting terrorism (at least since the 2004 report on pre-war intelligence failures).
Oh, the Republicans went nutzoid, leading House Minority Leader John Boehner to make the idiotic statement that he couldn't imagine "anyone in our intelligence area would ever mislead a member of Congress." This was followed by Senator Kit Bond, a man who lets other men call him "Kit," fanning himself and saying, in essence, "Oh, my stars and garters, I believe this has given me the vapors."
And while some Democrats and some in the press wonder what the fuck Pelosi is thinking, getting into a fight with the CIA never being a good idea, the Rude Pundit's said it before and he'll say it again: you don't fuck with Nancy Pelosi. You might disagree with her (and there's a great deal to do so on), but she's mostly a straight-shooter, and when she's cornered, she is like a fuckin' rat on meth: she'll chew right through you to get out. And one of the things she's done here is to put the universe right again: the CIA ought to be feared, for its ability to fuck up the world, for its pettiness, and for its inbred sense of privilege, that it's somehow above oversight. C'mon - the only records of these briefings to members of Congress are from the CIA. As Bob Graham has already demonstrated, the CIA ain't exactly on its game with the record-keeping.
Somewhere in here, the Rude Pundit wouldn't be surprised if this is a bizarro Republican plot, fostered by Dick Cheney's moles and Porter Goss, to sow the seeds of fear of Democratic leadership, a way to not only (obviously) distract from who is actually to blame on torture authorization and, well, torture itself, but as a way for the Republicans to reclaim power by making doubts about Democratic honesty and competence a focus. Toss in the Jane Harman story as another chapter.
Wait - the CIA engaged in subterfuge? Why, that's unthinkable.
Thank Nancy Pelosi for at least one thing: she's making it okay to hate the CIA again. Oh, sure, we were all giddy when, trying to demonstrate that they hadn't been neutered completely by Dick Cheney squeezing their balls to get info, the agency leaked classified info that it had put contrary footnotes in documents about evidence of WMDs in Iraq. And, man, we liberals were all about how splendiferous our magnificent intelligence agents were when Karl Rove outed Valerie Plame. It's so very sweet when you and some guy you hate are standing in a room with a starved tiger and the tiger eats the other guy. But you're still in that room, man, and that tiger is gonna get hungry again. However insidious and vindictive and destructive and, you know, criminal Karl Rove (among others) was about Plame, however deliberately manipulated or unconscionably dumb the CIA was about weapons in Iraq, it was odd, to say the least, to see the left praising and defending the very government entity that had been the cause of so, so many of the very clusterfucks that have plagued this country.
You want a list? Let's take the beginner's tour. For shit and giggles, start with the Vietnam War, work your way through Central and South America, pause to wave at the Contras and the graves of Pinochet's disappeared, take a walk through the School of the Americas, jaunt over to Afghanistan to meet the Mujihadeen, check out the failure to predict the imminent collapse of the Soviet Union, shake hands with Saddam Hussein, and then look over the many, many documents that did say there were WMDs in Iraq. And that's just the start, before we even get to the current "enhanced interrogation" scandal.
So when Speaker of the House Pelosi, finally sick of all the bullshit swirling around about when she was or wasn't briefed about waterboarding, said that the CIA lied to her in 2002 and that "They mislead us all the time," well, it was one of the ballsiest things we've heard from a top Democrat in Congress for a long damn time. Pelosi upset the motherfuckin' apple cart by breaching the ass-kissing we're supposed to be giving anyone who is remotely connected with fighting terrorism (at least since the 2004 report on pre-war intelligence failures).
Oh, the Republicans went nutzoid, leading House Minority Leader John Boehner to make the idiotic statement that he couldn't imagine "anyone in our intelligence area would ever mislead a member of Congress." This was followed by Senator Kit Bond, a man who lets other men call him "Kit," fanning himself and saying, in essence, "Oh, my stars and garters, I believe this has given me the vapors."
And while some Democrats and some in the press wonder what the fuck Pelosi is thinking, getting into a fight with the CIA never being a good idea, the Rude Pundit's said it before and he'll say it again: you don't fuck with Nancy Pelosi. You might disagree with her (and there's a great deal to do so on), but she's mostly a straight-shooter, and when she's cornered, she is like a fuckin' rat on meth: she'll chew right through you to get out. And one of the things she's done here is to put the universe right again: the CIA ought to be feared, for its ability to fuck up the world, for its pettiness, and for its inbred sense of privilege, that it's somehow above oversight. C'mon - the only records of these briefings to members of Congress are from the CIA. As Bob Graham has already demonstrated, the CIA ain't exactly on its game with the record-keeping.
Somewhere in here, the Rude Pundit wouldn't be surprised if this is a bizarro Republican plot, fostered by Dick Cheney's moles and Porter Goss, to sow the seeds of fear of Democratic leadership, a way to not only (obviously) distract from who is actually to blame on torture authorization and, well, torture itself, but as a way for the Republicans to reclaim power by making doubts about Democratic honesty and competence a focus. Toss in the Jane Harman story as another chapter.
Wait - the CIA engaged in subterfuge? Why, that's unthinkable.
The Torture Hearing Is Merely Another Band-Aid:
Let's put this in another context: There's a street gang, call 'em the Red Street White Kings, and they just got hit hard by another gang that was sick of the Kings trying to undercut their pot sales. Call 'em the Al-Kay Thug Boys. The Thug Boys fucked up a bunch of Kings, even killed a few. Now, the Kings are worried shitless that the Thug Boys are readying another attack, and one night they capture a couple of Thug Boys. At first, they try just the threat of violence to get info on when and where the Thug Boys are getting their weapons and drugs. The Kings even try a different tactic, telling the kidnapped Thug Boys how life is so much better as a King, how there's pussy and blow and cars and all kinds of shit. Hell, a man might be tempted to cross over. Then the head King says it ain't happening fast enough, the squealing. He orders the prisoners to be smacked around, to be tied up, to have water poured into their nostrils. Say this goes on for weeks, months, with Thug Boy after Thug Boy. You get the idea.
Now, let's not leave this analogy in the fucked up world of warring drug gangs and try to justify one side or the other. Oh, no. We're changing the context, remember? We keep being asked to see things from the perspective of the attacked or from the position of the prisoners. No, let's veer off here. Let's say that the cops get in there. Yeah, the LAPD or the FBI come knocking, pounding down the door, and what they find are all these Thug Boys who've been chained up, knocked around, and repeatedly nearly drowned to death. What's the cops' reaction supposed to be? What about the DA's? Or the general public's? That at least the Kings didn't cut off the heads and hands of their captives, like the Mexican gangs do? Is anyone going to argue that the captured Thug Boys weren't tortured by the Kings? When charges are brought against the Kings, are the crimes going to be mitigated because they didn't beat the Thug Boys to bloody pulps?
No, of course not. That's the moral equivalence of the deranged. Assault is assault. Torture is torture. There's difference of degrees, sure. But if you kill someone by a quick bullet to the head or by tying them down and letting rats slowly eat them away, you still committed murder.
The notion that we're actually arguing over whether or not the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody was criminal is one of the most depressing things the Rude Pundit has ever lived through. The fact that a Senator, at a public hearing, would declare, as putatively anti-torture Republican Lindsey Graham did, that there's a reason torture's been around "for 500 years" speaks to how low we've sunk in our respect for the law. (And that's not even getting into Graham's declaration that the Bush administration, just post-9/11, "saw law as a nicety we couldn't afford," which sounds like something fuckin' Idi Amin would say.)
The Rude Pundit's not gonna re-cap yesterday's hearing, except to say you should read the entirety of former FBI interrogator Ali Soufan's statement (he wasn't allowed to read the whole thing at the actual hearing because Graham was being such a dickhole). And the go-to blog for information on the hearing and more is Marcy Wheeler's Emptywheel.
There's some absolutes in this nation, or there oughta be. To sit around and still listen to someone like Jeffrey Addicott, a real professor at a real law school, lecture about how to parse the definition of "torture" so that the shit that we did can slip under it like a contortedly-bent dancer under a low limbo stick is to realize that these fuckers are no better than the street tough who beat a stoolie. It's less about protecting the nation than protecting their hides. (Addicott actually goes through the etymology of the word "torture" and then uses Israeli law to back him up.)
Unfortunately, with the selfish move by the Obama administration in reversing itself on the release of torture photos (a purely, crassly political move to make the courts do the dirty work), we are still more concerned with living in denial than in facing up to our shame and using it to learn and move on.
Let's put this in another context: There's a street gang, call 'em the Red Street White Kings, and they just got hit hard by another gang that was sick of the Kings trying to undercut their pot sales. Call 'em the Al-Kay Thug Boys. The Thug Boys fucked up a bunch of Kings, even killed a few. Now, the Kings are worried shitless that the Thug Boys are readying another attack, and one night they capture a couple of Thug Boys. At first, they try just the threat of violence to get info on when and where the Thug Boys are getting their weapons and drugs. The Kings even try a different tactic, telling the kidnapped Thug Boys how life is so much better as a King, how there's pussy and blow and cars and all kinds of shit. Hell, a man might be tempted to cross over. Then the head King says it ain't happening fast enough, the squealing. He orders the prisoners to be smacked around, to be tied up, to have water poured into their nostrils. Say this goes on for weeks, months, with Thug Boy after Thug Boy. You get the idea.
Now, let's not leave this analogy in the fucked up world of warring drug gangs and try to justify one side or the other. Oh, no. We're changing the context, remember? We keep being asked to see things from the perspective of the attacked or from the position of the prisoners. No, let's veer off here. Let's say that the cops get in there. Yeah, the LAPD or the FBI come knocking, pounding down the door, and what they find are all these Thug Boys who've been chained up, knocked around, and repeatedly nearly drowned to death. What's the cops' reaction supposed to be? What about the DA's? Or the general public's? That at least the Kings didn't cut off the heads and hands of their captives, like the Mexican gangs do? Is anyone going to argue that the captured Thug Boys weren't tortured by the Kings? When charges are brought against the Kings, are the crimes going to be mitigated because they didn't beat the Thug Boys to bloody pulps?
No, of course not. That's the moral equivalence of the deranged. Assault is assault. Torture is torture. There's difference of degrees, sure. But if you kill someone by a quick bullet to the head or by tying them down and letting rats slowly eat them away, you still committed murder.
The notion that we're actually arguing over whether or not the treatment of detainees in U.S. custody was criminal is one of the most depressing things the Rude Pundit has ever lived through. The fact that a Senator, at a public hearing, would declare, as putatively anti-torture Republican Lindsey Graham did, that there's a reason torture's been around "for 500 years" speaks to how low we've sunk in our respect for the law. (And that's not even getting into Graham's declaration that the Bush administration, just post-9/11, "saw law as a nicety we couldn't afford," which sounds like something fuckin' Idi Amin would say.)
The Rude Pundit's not gonna re-cap yesterday's hearing, except to say you should read the entirety of former FBI interrogator Ali Soufan's statement (he wasn't allowed to read the whole thing at the actual hearing because Graham was being such a dickhole). And the go-to blog for information on the hearing and more is Marcy Wheeler's Emptywheel.
There's some absolutes in this nation, or there oughta be. To sit around and still listen to someone like Jeffrey Addicott, a real professor at a real law school, lecture about how to parse the definition of "torture" so that the shit that we did can slip under it like a contortedly-bent dancer under a low limbo stick is to realize that these fuckers are no better than the street tough who beat a stoolie. It's less about protecting the nation than protecting their hides. (Addicott actually goes through the etymology of the word "torture" and then uses Israeli law to back him up.)
Unfortunately, with the selfish move by the Obama administration in reversing itself on the release of torture photos (a purely, crassly political move to make the courts do the dirty work), we are still more concerned with living in denial than in facing up to our shame and using it to learn and move on.
In Brief: Why Is This Pro-Choice Commencement Guest Different Than the Others?:
As bullshit protests begin to build over President Barack Obama's upcoming speech at the graduation ceremonies of the University of Notre Dame, as the froth is whipped into a rich, thick foam by self-aggrandizing pro-life activists and desperate-for-relevance Catholic bishops, perhaps a bit of history of graduation activities at Notre Dame is in order:
In 1980, the commencement speaker was Carter administration Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti, a supporter of abortion rights.
In 1987, an honorary degrees were given to the pro-choice Coretta Scott King, Alan Simpson, and Rosalyn Carter.
In 1991, an honorary degree was given to Jane Pauley, a pro-choice supporter.
In 1992, protesters lined up as pro-choice Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was given the university's Laetare Medal, "the oldest and most prestigious honor awarded an American Catholic," according to the Washington Post. President George H.W. Bush, giving the commencement keynote, went out of his way to praise Moynihan.
In 1993, an honorary degree was given to pro-choice judge Alan C. Page.
In 2000, the commencement speaker was then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who supports all kinds of family planning programs, including those where abortion is allowed.
You get the idea here? The Catholic Church: stinking with rank hypocrisy since Peter stood on a rock. And Catholics: the group that really puts the sheep in the flock.
As bullshit protests begin to build over President Barack Obama's upcoming speech at the graduation ceremonies of the University of Notre Dame, as the froth is whipped into a rich, thick foam by self-aggrandizing pro-life activists and desperate-for-relevance Catholic bishops, perhaps a bit of history of graduation activities at Notre Dame is in order:
In 1980, the commencement speaker was Carter administration Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti, a supporter of abortion rights.
In 1987, an honorary degrees were given to the pro-choice Coretta Scott King, Alan Simpson, and Rosalyn Carter.
In 1991, an honorary degree was given to Jane Pauley, a pro-choice supporter.
In 1992, protesters lined up as pro-choice Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan was given the university's Laetare Medal, "the oldest and most prestigious honor awarded an American Catholic," according to the Washington Post. President George H.W. Bush, giving the commencement keynote, went out of his way to praise Moynihan.
In 1993, an honorary degree was given to pro-choice judge Alan C. Page.
In 2000, the commencement speaker was then-U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who supports all kinds of family planning programs, including those where abortion is allowed.
You get the idea here? The Catholic Church: stinking with rank hypocrisy since Peter stood on a rock. And Catholics: the group that really puts the sheep in the flock.
Why Rush Limbaugh Ought to Be Force-Fed His Own Liposuctioned Fat (Cheney Reacharound Edition):
When former Vice President Dick Cheney paused in his sodomizing of Bob Shieffer's Face the Nation to give Rush Limbaugh a little reacharound hand job action (while shitting on Colin Powell's head - it's really quite a complicated move), you knew that Limbaugh would be as grateful as he is when the local Chinese buffet brings out a new tray of sweet and sour pork in the middle of his dining experience. His hand stretched around Limbaugh's girth like an elastic band on a sack of jello, Cheney needed only his thumb and forefinger to clutch the radio host's burnt wick of a cock and yank it as Shieffer spit out pubes to ask Cheney, between Limbaugh and Powell, "Where do you come down?"
Waggling Limbaugh's penis like a Play-Doh worm, Cheney responded, "Well, if I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I’d go with Rush Limbaugh, I think." Limbaugh, who only lets a handful of people fuck his ass with their pricks, moaned jowlingly as he had a tickle of an orgasm. Cheney wiped his fingers on Limbaugh's shirt and turned back to Shieffer, gesturing at his un-mouthed cock to indicate that Shieffer ought to get to back to the interview.
It didn't take long for Limbaugh to pen an encomium to the wealthy ranch owner. Titled "What Motivates Dick Cheney?" the porcine peddler of paranoia offered his listeners a lesson yesterday in absurd justification that would make Hermann Goering say, "Why the fuck didn't I think of that?" just before sucking down cyanide.
For you see, Dick Cheney is not a self-serving man. No, he doesn't need anything from us, says Limbaugh: "Dick Cheney has all the millions he needs. He doesn't need money. He has no future political ambitions. He coulda run in 2000; he coulda run in 2008; he doesn't want to run for elective office anymore. What motivates him? He's not hot for interns. He's not a torture freak." The Rude Pundit's not sure what a "torture freak" is in Limbaugh's world, although he's pretty sure Limbaugh's got the leather mask to prove his point.
In fact, this becomes the refrain through the entire monologue: "What motivates Dick Cheney? He knows the media hate his guts. He knows the media hate George W. Bush. He has all the money he needs. He has no political ambitions. He's not hot for interns. He's not a torture freak." Does one get to bang interns if one proudly proclaims that torture works? It's confusing.
Finally, Limbaugh answers his question: "Dick Cheney is one lone voice in the Republican Party. What motivates Dick Cheney? He's not hot for interns. He has all the money he needs. He's not a torture freak. He doesn't want to run for political office. Dick Cheney is motivated by love for his country."
First off, can you imagine how fucking proud Limbaugh was when he was sitting pantsless in his double-reinforced Herman Miller chair and he thought about how poetic his repetition would sound? It's like T.S. Eliot for the severely retarded.
And, yeah, Dick Cheney was motivated by love for "his" country. The problem is that Dick Cheney's United States is not the United States of the rest of us. In fact, it's not really the United States at all. His nation compromises every principle to reach an indeterminate end. Our nation believes those principles are what make us a nation in the first place.
When former Vice President Dick Cheney paused in his sodomizing of Bob Shieffer's Face the Nation to give Rush Limbaugh a little reacharound hand job action (while shitting on Colin Powell's head - it's really quite a complicated move), you knew that Limbaugh would be as grateful as he is when the local Chinese buffet brings out a new tray of sweet and sour pork in the middle of his dining experience. His hand stretched around Limbaugh's girth like an elastic band on a sack of jello, Cheney needed only his thumb and forefinger to clutch the radio host's burnt wick of a cock and yank it as Shieffer spit out pubes to ask Cheney, between Limbaugh and Powell, "Where do you come down?"
Waggling Limbaugh's penis like a Play-Doh worm, Cheney responded, "Well, if I had to choose in terms of being a Republican, I’d go with Rush Limbaugh, I think." Limbaugh, who only lets a handful of people fuck his ass with their pricks, moaned jowlingly as he had a tickle of an orgasm. Cheney wiped his fingers on Limbaugh's shirt and turned back to Shieffer, gesturing at his un-mouthed cock to indicate that Shieffer ought to get to back to the interview.
It didn't take long for Limbaugh to pen an encomium to the wealthy ranch owner. Titled "What Motivates Dick Cheney?" the porcine peddler of paranoia offered his listeners a lesson yesterday in absurd justification that would make Hermann Goering say, "Why the fuck didn't I think of that?" just before sucking down cyanide.
For you see, Dick Cheney is not a self-serving man. No, he doesn't need anything from us, says Limbaugh: "Dick Cheney has all the millions he needs. He doesn't need money. He has no future political ambitions. He coulda run in 2000; he coulda run in 2008; he doesn't want to run for elective office anymore. What motivates him? He's not hot for interns. He's not a torture freak." The Rude Pundit's not sure what a "torture freak" is in Limbaugh's world, although he's pretty sure Limbaugh's got the leather mask to prove his point.
In fact, this becomes the refrain through the entire monologue: "What motivates Dick Cheney? He knows the media hate his guts. He knows the media hate George W. Bush. He has all the money he needs. He has no political ambitions. He's not hot for interns. He's not a torture freak." Does one get to bang interns if one proudly proclaims that torture works? It's confusing.
Finally, Limbaugh answers his question: "Dick Cheney is one lone voice in the Republican Party. What motivates Dick Cheney? He's not hot for interns. He has all the money he needs. He's not a torture freak. He doesn't want to run for political office. Dick Cheney is motivated by love for his country."
First off, can you imagine how fucking proud Limbaugh was when he was sitting pantsless in his double-reinforced Herman Miller chair and he thought about how poetic his repetition would sound? It's like T.S. Eliot for the severely retarded.
And, yeah, Dick Cheney was motivated by love for "his" country. The problem is that Dick Cheney's United States is not the United States of the rest of us. In fact, it's not really the United States at all. His nation compromises every principle to reach an indeterminate end. Our nation believes those principles are what make us a nation in the first place.
Why Now, Dick?:
Now that it has realized that it can absorb sunlight without ulcerating too quickly, the acidic pollutant-made-flesh known as former Vice President Dick Cheney believes it can appear at will to forcibly spit forth fungal spores into the media atmosphere, parasitically attaching to those who it once spurned, feeding off them to hopefully infect them to make them rot. For, indeed, Dick Cheney is nothing if not an entity that wishes things to collapse from within, like a gutted corpse.
"What is Cheney's game?" the political prognosticators ponder. Why has he appeared now, so very often, to declaim the rightness of his administration's approach to interrogation and war? More than likely, it's just the ruminations of a bitter little man with nothing better to do with his time. But, still, the Rude Pundit's got a couple of other ideas:
It's a Rovean plot to save the Republican party. It's contingent on another terrorist attack happening at some point, but if Cheney is out there telling America that Barack Obama is feeding al-Qaeda a porridge of our tasty civil rights instead of slamming suspects around, then should a mall in Dubuque go up in a mushroom cloud, who's gonna seem like they were never wrong? Or...
It's an ass-saving, investigation poisoning act. Let's say that an investigation into torture authorization (or lying under oath about torture authorization) leads right to him. Cheney's on the record protestations that it wasn't torture and that it saved lives, unchallenged by the media, abrogates any revelations and gets out there his defense. It upends the process of allegation and alibi and, barring any major new information, renders many of the conclusions of an investigation either moot or contradictory.
But mostly, Cheney's interview on CBS's Face the Nation with Vampire Bob was just a clusterfuck of self-aggrandizing and masturbatory impulses, with the former VP yanking it until he exploded cold spooge over Vampire Bob's nation-sized face. For, and here's the deal, if waterboarding did absolutely prevent that Dubuque nuke, then who the fuck cares if it was torture or not? Give someone a fuckin' medal.
Except it didn't. That's why he's scrambling so hard. All Cheney was peddling was the pathetic idea that the United States became so degraded under the watch of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney that it was just one pour of the bottle, one detainee slapping away from apocalypse. If the purpose of Cheney's interview schedule is to prop up his legacy, then all he's succeeding in doing is making us see how far down they dragged us.
Now that it has realized that it can absorb sunlight without ulcerating too quickly, the acidic pollutant-made-flesh known as former Vice President Dick Cheney believes it can appear at will to forcibly spit forth fungal spores into the media atmosphere, parasitically attaching to those who it once spurned, feeding off them to hopefully infect them to make them rot. For, indeed, Dick Cheney is nothing if not an entity that wishes things to collapse from within, like a gutted corpse.
"What is Cheney's game?" the political prognosticators ponder. Why has he appeared now, so very often, to declaim the rightness of his administration's approach to interrogation and war? More than likely, it's just the ruminations of a bitter little man with nothing better to do with his time. But, still, the Rude Pundit's got a couple of other ideas:
It's a Rovean plot to save the Republican party. It's contingent on another terrorist attack happening at some point, but if Cheney is out there telling America that Barack Obama is feeding al-Qaeda a porridge of our tasty civil rights instead of slamming suspects around, then should a mall in Dubuque go up in a mushroom cloud, who's gonna seem like they were never wrong? Or...
It's an ass-saving, investigation poisoning act. Let's say that an investigation into torture authorization (or lying under oath about torture authorization) leads right to him. Cheney's on the record protestations that it wasn't torture and that it saved lives, unchallenged by the media, abrogates any revelations and gets out there his defense. It upends the process of allegation and alibi and, barring any major new information, renders many of the conclusions of an investigation either moot or contradictory.
But mostly, Cheney's interview on CBS's Face the Nation with Vampire Bob was just a clusterfuck of self-aggrandizing and masturbatory impulses, with the former VP yanking it until he exploded cold spooge over Vampire Bob's nation-sized face. For, and here's the deal, if waterboarding did absolutely prevent that Dubuque nuke, then who the fuck cares if it was torture or not? Give someone a fuckin' medal.
Except it didn't. That's why he's scrambling so hard. All Cheney was peddling was the pathetic idea that the United States became so degraded under the watch of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney that it was just one pour of the bottle, one detainee slapping away from apocalypse. If the purpose of Cheney's interview schedule is to prop up his legacy, then all he's succeeding in doing is making us see how far down they dragged us.
Big Gay Friday:
Oh, sweet twatmongers and cocksuckers, how we are teetering on the brink, breathlessly close to the tipping point, to the dominoes falling, to the lit fuse finally hitting the barrel of gunpowder. As state after state breaks down the barrier to gay marriage, as discussion of overturning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" comes out of the closet, as it seems, to more and more and more of the citizens of this country that it's just idiotic to still be having these debates, we are reminded, time and again, that there's fuckers blocking the door. Like Republicans, these are becoming rare, isolated fools who have just enough power to fuck things up, but they still look like backwards fools in our brave, new, yet undefined era. To wit:
1. Pat Robertson, demonstrating that, no, really, he's still alive, said on The 700 Club (motto: "Wait, people are still watching us?"), regarding Maine's legalization of gay marriage, "But if we take biblical standards away in homosexuality, what about [polygamy]? And what about bestiality and ultimately what about child molestation and pedophilia? How can we criminalize these things and at the same time have constitutional amendments allowing same-sex marriage among homosexuals. You mark my words, this is just the beginning in a long downward slide in relation to all the things that we consider to be abhorrent." And the best part is that he wasn't joking, that he didn't finish with, "No, ya'll, I'm just joshin'. I just hate queers."
Oh, yeah, the Rude Pundit's crossing his fingers that soon he'll get to marry all ten of that litter of hot ass pug puppies next door. His penis can barely contain itself in anticipation.
Robertson may be able to relax and know that his lobster hasn't been sodomized because there's already an effort underway in Maine to try to overturn the new law.
2. Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, who is leading the Republican effort to figure out what the fuck to do about President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, said, "I don't think a person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified per se for the job." Which would seem to be good news for Lindsey Graham, except he keeps his tendencies unacknowledged, however blatant they may be.
3. On "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which is also the answer to the question, "How many gay military translators does it take to stop a terrorist attack?" there's mixed signals coming from the White House. Obama wrote to a recently booted lesbian army officer to say that he is committed to overturning the inane policy. And yet the administration seems to be allowing a gay National Guard officer to be drummed out on its watch, when the President has the power to stop it. This isn't over yet, so let's leave it dangling before offering condemnation, although it's filled with suckage as it stands.
4. Finally, let's also acknowledge that, whatever advances are made, that even simple acts of saying who you are are still acts of bravery. Actor David Ogden Stiers (from TV's MASH and a lot of goddamn animated films) recently said that he is gay. In an interview with the blog Gossip Boy, Stiers admitted he had stayed in the closet because of his career and added, "I wish to spend my life’s twilight being just who I am. I could claim noble reasons as coming out in order to move gay rights forward, but I must admit it is for far more selfish reasons. Now is the time I wish to find someone and I do not desire to force any potential partner to live a life of extreme discretion with me."
Stiers is also a longtime reader of this blog, so the Rude Pundit would like to add, "Hey, man, fuckin' cool."
Oh, sweet twatmongers and cocksuckers, how we are teetering on the brink, breathlessly close to the tipping point, to the dominoes falling, to the lit fuse finally hitting the barrel of gunpowder. As state after state breaks down the barrier to gay marriage, as discussion of overturning "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" comes out of the closet, as it seems, to more and more and more of the citizens of this country that it's just idiotic to still be having these debates, we are reminded, time and again, that there's fuckers blocking the door. Like Republicans, these are becoming rare, isolated fools who have just enough power to fuck things up, but they still look like backwards fools in our brave, new, yet undefined era. To wit:
1. Pat Robertson, demonstrating that, no, really, he's still alive, said on The 700 Club (motto: "Wait, people are still watching us?"), regarding Maine's legalization of gay marriage, "But if we take biblical standards away in homosexuality, what about [polygamy]? And what about bestiality and ultimately what about child molestation and pedophilia? How can we criminalize these things and at the same time have constitutional amendments allowing same-sex marriage among homosexuals. You mark my words, this is just the beginning in a long downward slide in relation to all the things that we consider to be abhorrent." And the best part is that he wasn't joking, that he didn't finish with, "No, ya'll, I'm just joshin'. I just hate queers."
Oh, yeah, the Rude Pundit's crossing his fingers that soon he'll get to marry all ten of that litter of hot ass pug puppies next door. His penis can barely contain itself in anticipation.
Robertson may be able to relax and know that his lobster hasn't been sodomized because there's already an effort underway in Maine to try to overturn the new law.
2. Alabama Senator Jeff Sessions, who is leading the Republican effort to figure out what the fuck to do about President Obama's Supreme Court nominee, said, "I don't think a person who acknowledges that they have gay tendencies is disqualified per se for the job." Which would seem to be good news for Lindsey Graham, except he keeps his tendencies unacknowledged, however blatant they may be.
3. On "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," which is also the answer to the question, "How many gay military translators does it take to stop a terrorist attack?" there's mixed signals coming from the White House. Obama wrote to a recently booted lesbian army officer to say that he is committed to overturning the inane policy. And yet the administration seems to be allowing a gay National Guard officer to be drummed out on its watch, when the President has the power to stop it. This isn't over yet, so let's leave it dangling before offering condemnation, although it's filled with suckage as it stands.
4. Finally, let's also acknowledge that, whatever advances are made, that even simple acts of saying who you are are still acts of bravery. Actor David Ogden Stiers (from TV's MASH and a lot of goddamn animated films) recently said that he is gay. In an interview with the blog Gossip Boy, Stiers admitted he had stayed in the closet because of his career and added, "I wish to spend my life’s twilight being just who I am. I could claim noble reasons as coming out in order to move gay rights forward, but I must admit it is for far more selfish reasons. Now is the time I wish to find someone and I do not desire to force any potential partner to live a life of extreme discretion with me."
Stiers is also a longtime reader of this blog, so the Rude Pundit would like to add, "Hey, man, fuckin' cool."
The Death of the Republican Party, Part 2: The Walking Supreme Court Justice Blues:
Let us say, and why not, that you are a bisexual male (and if you are, dude, let's party). And you've gotten back from an evening of group sex, as, you know, all bisexuals do every night. You go to bed tired, spent, smelling of fluids viscous and clear. You're lying in bed when, all of a sudden, you feel itching in your groin. At first, you scratch your balls and think that does it. But it gets worse. No matter how much you rub, the itch doesn't stop. In fact, you're feeling bites. You look through your pubes and you start to see the marks. You grab a magnifying glass and finally it's clear. You've got crabs, motherfucker.
What do you do? If you're smart, you immediately go to the doctor, get the anti-lice shit you need, shave yourself, whatever, to get rid of those bastards. You'd realize that you oughta get treated before you fuck again. You'd silently stay away from the scene so you can heal without tipping your hand (although, really, you oughta tell your recent partners). But not you, man. You're a stupid fucker. You decide you're just gonna keep on having sex with your group, no matter how many people you inflict your infestation on. You just make sure you don't scratch while anyone's looking. In fact, being the selfish, apathetic, blind asshole you are, you fuck away until word gets out about you and no one wants your buggy ass anywhere near them. A couple of months later you may reappear on the scene, claiming that you finally got treated. But who'd believe you? Their memories of the pain and itch you left them with are strong. It's exile for you, dear theoretical bisexual, a scarlet C, because you were too fucking dumb to see that you were the plague all along.
Alas, such is the fate of the dying Republican Party. As they sit around with each other, scratching their pubes, wondering how they can best perfume the same wheelbarrow of shit they've been pushing for years. With the coming Supreme Court nominee battle, Republicans have a choice: to actually shut the fuck up and regroup or to get into a circular firing squad with guns pointed at guts so that they bleed to death horribly.
Barring the revelation that a nominee owns a gay illegal immigrant-run abortion factory, President Obama's gonna get whoever he wants onto the Supreme Court. Even Rupert Murdoch's yapping dog, Karl Rove, knows that. But let's push this even further. It's not just that the American public has voted Republicans out of power. It's that we're sick of them. We don't want to hear what they have to say about anything. The vast majority of us don't care what Republicans want. When they talk, we stick our fingers in our ears and yell like angry teenagers, "Blah, blah, blah, lower taxes, blah, blah, blah, no gay marriage, blah, blah, blah, less regulation." Seriously, at this point, listening to Republicans talk about policy is about the same as listening to a particularly articulate toddler explain why he refuses to shit in a toilet.
So at some point, they need to take themselves out of the picture for a little while. They need to choose a battle not to fight. And this Supreme Court justice nomination is where it ought to happen. There's no reason to get themselves all geared up for some kind of idiot's rage about the nomination of a pro-choice, anti-corporate, "empathetic" nominee. Republicans are not gonna get who they want. And it's Souter's replacement, so there won't be a change in the "balance" of the court. Where's the advantage in fighting except in keeping Rush Limbaugh happy? And, tell us, how does it feel to be a fat man's bitch? Does his gut feel heavy resting on your heads while you're sucking his dick?
This is the 2009 Republican Party. Everything they do is another step in the long death march they've been on since 2006. No, instead we'll get the usual bullshit pronouncements about abortion rights, about limiting the ability of people to sue, about "judicial activism," one of those meaningless phrases that fools use to make themselves sound smart. They'll say they're standing up for people when all they're doing is pleasuring the base like a Chinese masseuse on happy ending duty at a corporate retreat.
Then again, this is a group who actually believes that the future of the party might be named "Bush" or "Palin" or "Romney," the crabs on the crotch of American progress.
Let us say, and why not, that you are a bisexual male (and if you are, dude, let's party). And you've gotten back from an evening of group sex, as, you know, all bisexuals do every night. You go to bed tired, spent, smelling of fluids viscous and clear. You're lying in bed when, all of a sudden, you feel itching in your groin. At first, you scratch your balls and think that does it. But it gets worse. No matter how much you rub, the itch doesn't stop. In fact, you're feeling bites. You look through your pubes and you start to see the marks. You grab a magnifying glass and finally it's clear. You've got crabs, motherfucker.
What do you do? If you're smart, you immediately go to the doctor, get the anti-lice shit you need, shave yourself, whatever, to get rid of those bastards. You'd realize that you oughta get treated before you fuck again. You'd silently stay away from the scene so you can heal without tipping your hand (although, really, you oughta tell your recent partners). But not you, man. You're a stupid fucker. You decide you're just gonna keep on having sex with your group, no matter how many people you inflict your infestation on. You just make sure you don't scratch while anyone's looking. In fact, being the selfish, apathetic, blind asshole you are, you fuck away until word gets out about you and no one wants your buggy ass anywhere near them. A couple of months later you may reappear on the scene, claiming that you finally got treated. But who'd believe you? Their memories of the pain and itch you left them with are strong. It's exile for you, dear theoretical bisexual, a scarlet C, because you were too fucking dumb to see that you were the plague all along.
Alas, such is the fate of the dying Republican Party. As they sit around with each other, scratching their pubes, wondering how they can best perfume the same wheelbarrow of shit they've been pushing for years. With the coming Supreme Court nominee battle, Republicans have a choice: to actually shut the fuck up and regroup or to get into a circular firing squad with guns pointed at guts so that they bleed to death horribly.
Barring the revelation that a nominee owns a gay illegal immigrant-run abortion factory, President Obama's gonna get whoever he wants onto the Supreme Court. Even Rupert Murdoch's yapping dog, Karl Rove, knows that. But let's push this even further. It's not just that the American public has voted Republicans out of power. It's that we're sick of them. We don't want to hear what they have to say about anything. The vast majority of us don't care what Republicans want. When they talk, we stick our fingers in our ears and yell like angry teenagers, "Blah, blah, blah, lower taxes, blah, blah, blah, no gay marriage, blah, blah, blah, less regulation." Seriously, at this point, listening to Republicans talk about policy is about the same as listening to a particularly articulate toddler explain why he refuses to shit in a toilet.
So at some point, they need to take themselves out of the picture for a little while. They need to choose a battle not to fight. And this Supreme Court justice nomination is where it ought to happen. There's no reason to get themselves all geared up for some kind of idiot's rage about the nomination of a pro-choice, anti-corporate, "empathetic" nominee. Republicans are not gonna get who they want. And it's Souter's replacement, so there won't be a change in the "balance" of the court. Where's the advantage in fighting except in keeping Rush Limbaugh happy? And, tell us, how does it feel to be a fat man's bitch? Does his gut feel heavy resting on your heads while you're sucking his dick?
This is the 2009 Republican Party. Everything they do is another step in the long death march they've been on since 2006. No, instead we'll get the usual bullshit pronouncements about abortion rights, about limiting the ability of people to sue, about "judicial activism," one of those meaningless phrases that fools use to make themselves sound smart. They'll say they're standing up for people when all they're doing is pleasuring the base like a Chinese masseuse on happy ending duty at a corporate retreat.
Then again, this is a group who actually believes that the future of the party might be named "Bush" or "Palin" or "Romney," the crabs on the crotch of American progress.
In Brief: Michael Savage: New Winner of the Easiest Takedown in History:
Great Britain banned, among others, radio host and walking self-parody Michael Savage from entering the UK because he is someone who is "fostering extremism or hate."
Savage, who just last week said of illegal immigrants from Mexico, "[T]hey are a perfect mule -- perfect mules for bringing this virus into America," and that swine flu was cooked up by Islamic radicals to test the borders, is considering suing the British official who made the announcement. Savage, who once wished AIDS on a caller and says repeatedly that homosexuality is a perversion, is upset because the list of people banned from Britain includes him alongside Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps and believes he is being defamed.
In an interview, British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith (who was so hot when she was on Charlie's Angels) said, "If people have so clearly overstepped the mark in terms of the way not just that they are talking but the sort of attitudes that they are expressing to the extent that we think that this is likely to cause or have the potential to cause violence or inter-community tension in this country, then actually I think the right thing is not to let them into the country in the first place. Not to open the stable door then try to close it later."
That's something you think that Savage would respect since, on page 122 of his 2004 book The Savage Nation, he spittles: "And I'll tell you something else. 'It's our borders, stupid.' If America is going to survive...we must defend our borders from those who come to exploit our nation or we're cooked. We're finished...In the spirit of nationalism...we must defend our borders against the dregs of society."
Which is just what Britain did, almost like they were advised by Michael Savage.
Great Britain banned, among others, radio host and walking self-parody Michael Savage from entering the UK because he is someone who is "fostering extremism or hate."
Savage, who just last week said of illegal immigrants from Mexico, "[T]hey are a perfect mule -- perfect mules for bringing this virus into America," and that swine flu was cooked up by Islamic radicals to test the borders, is considering suing the British official who made the announcement. Savage, who once wished AIDS on a caller and says repeatedly that homosexuality is a perversion, is upset because the list of people banned from Britain includes him alongside Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps and believes he is being defamed.
In an interview, British Home Secretary Jacqui Smith (who was so hot when she was on Charlie's Angels) said, "If people have so clearly overstepped the mark in terms of the way not just that they are talking but the sort of attitudes that they are expressing to the extent that we think that this is likely to cause or have the potential to cause violence or inter-community tension in this country, then actually I think the right thing is not to let them into the country in the first place. Not to open the stable door then try to close it later."
That's something you think that Savage would respect since, on page 122 of his 2004 book The Savage Nation, he spittles: "And I'll tell you something else. 'It's our borders, stupid.' If America is going to survive...we must defend our borders from those who come to exploit our nation or we're cooked. We're finished...In the spirit of nationalism...we must defend our borders against the dregs of society."
Which is just what Britain did, almost like they were advised by Michael Savage.
The Death of the Republican Party, Part 1: Janet Jackson's Nipple of Doom:
Here's where we stand as a nation: Right now, it is more likely that someone or some entity will be punished for the split-second exposure of Janet Jackson's naked titty during the 2004 Super Bowl than for authorizing the torture of detainees at our prison in Guantanamo Bay. It is more likely that someone will get fined for Bono exuberantly broguing the word "fucking" as an adverb during a live awards show than for wrecking the American economy. These are the type of ruins left behind after an indulgent period in 2003-2004, when scared shitless Democrats, cowed by the Karl Rove-created juggernaut of post-9/11 Bushistic politics, forgot that there was a fucking war going on and actually enabled the Republican Congress to hold hearings and raise FCC fines because of a breast that you could only see if you went tenth of a second by tenth of a second through the video, the typical masturbatory obsessiveness of the religious right.
Even now, with the Supreme Court's two rulings in the last week upholding the fleeting, spontaneous "fuck" regulation on a 5-4 vote and sending the Jackson boob back to a federal appeals court to reconsider its overturning of a fine, Democratic Senator John D. Rockefeller declared, "We must be doing more, not less, to give the FCC and parents all across America the resources they need to protect their children from indecent programming." Once a prison bitch, always a prison bitch.
Of course, it probably doesn't need to be pointed out that by the time the Congress was arguing about fucks and tits, America was waterboarding the fucking tits off Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and more or less making psychological and physical wrecks out of other detainees in various prisons, with the Abu Ghraib photos just coming out. But, especially to Republicans, there was far, far more indecency in that nipple.
Democrats were on a death march, desperately flailing about, completely disempowered, trying to figure out the best way to be junior Republicans, too blinded by fear to oppose the President, even with the filibuster, simply trying not to hemorrhage in the next election. Of course, we know what happened, when the mind-blowing incompetence of the Bush administration brought the chickens home to roost. But that was still three years away.
However, the revival of the Janet Jackson nipple case is a reminder to people of just why they eventually turned so viciously on Republicans and why the GOP is an Al Franken away from irrelevance, and it's a warning, in a way, to Democrats. After the start of the Iraq war, Republicans became bloated with power (forgetting the minor setback in what was the savage end of the Gingrich "revolution" when they overplayed their hand during the Clinton impeachment). In those heady pre-Katrina days, Republicans indulged themselves like mini-Caligulas at the horse-fucking fair, and, quite simply, they did nothing to actually improve anyone's life except Halliburton's. And as everything started to turn south, the war, the economy, the world's opinion of us, Republicans still refused to do anything - fucking anything - that would actually make the country better.
It was ideology over pragmatism. It was throwing bones to the base at the expense of the larger public. Republicans nuzzled up to Janet Jackson's nipple and suckled it dry. And that's what they're left with: chapped lips at an empty teat, weeping to get one more meal from it.
Coming up: why the Supreme Court nominee battle will stab the GOP in the gut.
Here's where we stand as a nation: Right now, it is more likely that someone or some entity will be punished for the split-second exposure of Janet Jackson's naked titty during the 2004 Super Bowl than for authorizing the torture of detainees at our prison in Guantanamo Bay. It is more likely that someone will get fined for Bono exuberantly broguing the word "fucking" as an adverb during a live awards show than for wrecking the American economy. These are the type of ruins left behind after an indulgent period in 2003-2004, when scared shitless Democrats, cowed by the Karl Rove-created juggernaut of post-9/11 Bushistic politics, forgot that there was a fucking war going on and actually enabled the Republican Congress to hold hearings and raise FCC fines because of a breast that you could only see if you went tenth of a second by tenth of a second through the video, the typical masturbatory obsessiveness of the religious right.
Even now, with the Supreme Court's two rulings in the last week upholding the fleeting, spontaneous "fuck" regulation on a 5-4 vote and sending the Jackson boob back to a federal appeals court to reconsider its overturning of a fine, Democratic Senator John D. Rockefeller declared, "We must be doing more, not less, to give the FCC and parents all across America the resources they need to protect their children from indecent programming." Once a prison bitch, always a prison bitch.
Of course, it probably doesn't need to be pointed out that by the time the Congress was arguing about fucks and tits, America was waterboarding the fucking tits off Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and more or less making psychological and physical wrecks out of other detainees in various prisons, with the Abu Ghraib photos just coming out. But, especially to Republicans, there was far, far more indecency in that nipple.
Democrats were on a death march, desperately flailing about, completely disempowered, trying to figure out the best way to be junior Republicans, too blinded by fear to oppose the President, even with the filibuster, simply trying not to hemorrhage in the next election. Of course, we know what happened, when the mind-blowing incompetence of the Bush administration brought the chickens home to roost. But that was still three years away.
However, the revival of the Janet Jackson nipple case is a reminder to people of just why they eventually turned so viciously on Republicans and why the GOP is an Al Franken away from irrelevance, and it's a warning, in a way, to Democrats. After the start of the Iraq war, Republicans became bloated with power (forgetting the minor setback in what was the savage end of the Gingrich "revolution" when they overplayed their hand during the Clinton impeachment). In those heady pre-Katrina days, Republicans indulged themselves like mini-Caligulas at the horse-fucking fair, and, quite simply, they did nothing to actually improve anyone's life except Halliburton's. And as everything started to turn south, the war, the economy, the world's opinion of us, Republicans still refused to do anything - fucking anything - that would actually make the country better.
It was ideology over pragmatism. It was throwing bones to the base at the expense of the larger public. Republicans nuzzled up to Janet Jackson's nipple and suckled it dry. And that's what they're left with: chapped lips at an empty teat, weeping to get one more meal from it.
Coming up: why the Supreme Court nominee battle will stab the GOP in the gut.
Why Does Conservative Spoogebucket Kevin McCullough Want to Get Fucked by Perez Hilton and Michael Musto?:
Frankly, the Rude Pundit doesn't give a happy monkey fuck about Miss California's opinions on any goddamn thing. Or, really, those of Miss USA, Miss America, Miss Universe, or Miss Oblivion. Beauty pageants exist to tell us the obvious: that tits and legs are nice things. To take anything a contestant says to mean anything more than "Can we get this over with so everyone can stare at my tits again?" is to think that Miss USAmerica has a purpose beyond waving.
So, really, when Carrie Prejean said her ill-informed and backwards ass and semi-coherent statement about gay marriage in answer to a question from celebrity blogger (yeah, read that without giggling) Perez Hilton, it would of course be fodder for much bitchiness and jokes. It's sort of one of the reasons mean jokes get told: to make fun of idiots. And when it was revealed that she had fake tits paid for by the pageant? Oh, that's silicon-based gravy, motherfuckers.
But the backlash against the backlash that's happened? That's just demonstrable proof of the continuing desperation of the religious right to remain relevant as they rant into the darkness. First there was the embrace of Prejean by the anti-gay marriage forces and groups like the mantra-named NOM and the Family Research Council (motto: "Umm, Jesus? You still there?"). Then there was Prejean as blog and column subject.
And now we have Kevin McCullough, the repressed right-winger who gets to hang onto Christ's nut hair as he tries to eke out a career as a writer and radio host, the bottom, if you will, of conservative hate spewers. In his latest "column" (if by "column," you mean, "Deranged self-fluffing that would make a gay male porn star say, 'Whoa, you're gonna break it'"), McCullough essentially says that if Prejean were his sister, he'd fuck her.
No, wait, that's not right. He says, more or less, that if Prejean were his sister, he'd beat up Perez Hilton and Village Voice gossip monger Michael Musto for calling Prejean bad names. After telling us how he assaulted another boy in middle school for calling his sister a bitch, he adds, "[S]omeone like her brother needs to pay a visit to Perez Hilton and Village Voice columnist Michael Musto and remind them how men are expected to comport in society." Which, in most places, would be called "gay-bashing."
What follows is a vicious homophobic attack on the two men, with the hope that they're beaten mixed in with degrading, sexist rhetoric of straight male dominance. Surely, there has rarely been a more desperate cry for "More dicks in my face, please" ever uttered from deep within a closet. McCullough minces, "The fact that few men have had visceral reactions to this demonstrates how weak modern feminism has caused men to become." Or maybe it actually demonstrates how modern feminism has allowed women to be strong enough to defend themselves (with much work still to go, yes).
McCullough talks about how his mother raised him to treat women in a sexist, patronizing fashion, and then says, "In the anonymity of a television studio, or the safety of a bedroom webcam, Musto and Hilton feel they can rhetorically rape the heart and soul of Carrie Prejean. But friend, that's just pure evil." But denying an adult the right to marry the adult he or she wants to? Why, that's just abiding God's will, no?
Poor Kevin McCullough. One day, he'll realize that what he really wants is to be trapped between a cock and a hard place. Or, you know, Hilton and Musto.
Frankly, the Rude Pundit doesn't give a happy monkey fuck about Miss California's opinions on any goddamn thing. Or, really, those of Miss USA, Miss America, Miss Universe, or Miss Oblivion. Beauty pageants exist to tell us the obvious: that tits and legs are nice things. To take anything a contestant says to mean anything more than "Can we get this over with so everyone can stare at my tits again?" is to think that Miss USAmerica has a purpose beyond waving.
So, really, when Carrie Prejean said her ill-informed and backwards ass and semi-coherent statement about gay marriage in answer to a question from celebrity blogger (yeah, read that without giggling) Perez Hilton, it would of course be fodder for much bitchiness and jokes. It's sort of one of the reasons mean jokes get told: to make fun of idiots. And when it was revealed that she had fake tits paid for by the pageant? Oh, that's silicon-based gravy, motherfuckers.
But the backlash against the backlash that's happened? That's just demonstrable proof of the continuing desperation of the religious right to remain relevant as they rant into the darkness. First there was the embrace of Prejean by the anti-gay marriage forces and groups like the mantra-named NOM and the Family Research Council (motto: "Umm, Jesus? You still there?"). Then there was Prejean as blog and column subject.
And now we have Kevin McCullough, the repressed right-winger who gets to hang onto Christ's nut hair as he tries to eke out a career as a writer and radio host, the bottom, if you will, of conservative hate spewers. In his latest "column" (if by "column," you mean, "Deranged self-fluffing that would make a gay male porn star say, 'Whoa, you're gonna break it'"), McCullough essentially says that if Prejean were his sister, he'd fuck her.
No, wait, that's not right. He says, more or less, that if Prejean were his sister, he'd beat up Perez Hilton and Village Voice gossip monger Michael Musto for calling Prejean bad names. After telling us how he assaulted another boy in middle school for calling his sister a bitch, he adds, "[S]omeone like her brother needs to pay a visit to Perez Hilton and Village Voice columnist Michael Musto and remind them how men are expected to comport in society." Which, in most places, would be called "gay-bashing."
What follows is a vicious homophobic attack on the two men, with the hope that they're beaten mixed in with degrading, sexist rhetoric of straight male dominance. Surely, there has rarely been a more desperate cry for "More dicks in my face, please" ever uttered from deep within a closet. McCullough minces, "The fact that few men have had visceral reactions to this demonstrates how weak modern feminism has caused men to become." Or maybe it actually demonstrates how modern feminism has allowed women to be strong enough to defend themselves (with much work still to go, yes).
McCullough talks about how his mother raised him to treat women in a sexist, patronizing fashion, and then says, "In the anonymity of a television studio, or the safety of a bedroom webcam, Musto and Hilton feel they can rhetorically rape the heart and soul of Carrie Prejean. But friend, that's just pure evil." But denying an adult the right to marry the adult he or she wants to? Why, that's just abiding God's will, no?
Poor Kevin McCullough. One day, he'll realize that what he really wants is to be trapped between a cock and a hard place. Or, you know, Hilton and Musto.
Friday Fun Quotes (Texas "Education" Edition):
Let us say, and why not, that you heard these quotes from someone who calls himself a "minister":
On Hurricane Katrina: "The immediate question arises in many Christians minds: was Katrina God's judgment on America in general, and/or was it His judgment on that area of the country, or on New Orleans in particular?"- From September 8, 2005
On gay marriage: "This is a Satanic attack on God's order of creation, and Christians must resist this with everything we have. The fight against the homosexual agenda is spiritual warfare of the highest order, but it must be waged not only with the spiritual weapons of prayer, but also with all the political, and social weapons that we are able to utilize." - From July 20, 2006
On the financial crisis: "If, as I suspect, the financial meltdown is part of His judgment on us because of our growing moral and spiritual rejection of His standards, then He may very well let us sink into severe straits in order to bring us back to Himself. Perhaps we will not come to repentance about abortion and homosexuality and pornography and gambling and greed and sexual immorality and all the rest of it until the economy is so bad that we cry out for mercy." - From November 13, 2008
Now, you may read that and think, "Well, sure, that's some fringe shit there, some way out there ultra-fundamentalist fucktardery," or words to that effect. And you'd probably be right if the Texas State Board of Education wasn't about to appoint Peter Marshall, no, not the former host of Hollywood Squares, but the writer and/or speaker of all of the above and the leader of the surprisingly humbly-named "Peter Marshall Ministries," to an expert panel on the social studies curriculum at Texas public schools. Guess that means X takes the square.
Oh, and they've also decided to appoint another guy, David Barton, who believes that all public policy should be guided - no, controlled - by the bible, including taxes. As the Texas Freedom Network points out, surely there's a, you know, university scholar or two who might be more qualified. And, yes, there are conservative historians who don't suck Christ's toes every chance they get. But kickin' the Jesus jams is what this is about.
So there's the next battleground for the Christian right to shove their bible up the asses of schoolkids: social studies. The TFN helpfully points out: "The state board is scheduled to adopt revised social curriculum standards in March 2010. Publishers will use those standards to write new textbooks for Texas classrooms. The board is scheduled to adopt those new social studies textbooks in 2012."
Again and again, the Rude Pundit has said that when other states make their students stupid, they are inflicting that stupid on the rest of the nation. The rest of us have to deal with the arrested intellects of your bible-beaten zomboids, shrinking ranks though they may be. Fuck, Marshall doesn't even believe that Christian kids should get a public school education unless they have to walk between Jesus's legs to get into the classroom.
Now, what's the argument for not just letting Texas fuckin' bail on the U.S.?
Let us say, and why not, that you heard these quotes from someone who calls himself a "minister":
On Hurricane Katrina: "The immediate question arises in many Christians minds: was Katrina God's judgment on America in general, and/or was it His judgment on that area of the country, or on New Orleans in particular?"- From September 8, 2005
On gay marriage: "This is a Satanic attack on God's order of creation, and Christians must resist this with everything we have. The fight against the homosexual agenda is spiritual warfare of the highest order, but it must be waged not only with the spiritual weapons of prayer, but also with all the political, and social weapons that we are able to utilize." - From July 20, 2006
On the financial crisis: "If, as I suspect, the financial meltdown is part of His judgment on us because of our growing moral and spiritual rejection of His standards, then He may very well let us sink into severe straits in order to bring us back to Himself. Perhaps we will not come to repentance about abortion and homosexuality and pornography and gambling and greed and sexual immorality and all the rest of it until the economy is so bad that we cry out for mercy." - From November 13, 2008
Now, you may read that and think, "Well, sure, that's some fringe shit there, some way out there ultra-fundamentalist fucktardery," or words to that effect. And you'd probably be right if the Texas State Board of Education wasn't about to appoint Peter Marshall, no, not the former host of Hollywood Squares, but the writer and/or speaker of all of the above and the leader of the surprisingly humbly-named "Peter Marshall Ministries," to an expert panel on the social studies curriculum at Texas public schools. Guess that means X takes the square.
Oh, and they've also decided to appoint another guy, David Barton, who believes that all public policy should be guided - no, controlled - by the bible, including taxes. As the Texas Freedom Network points out, surely there's a, you know, university scholar or two who might be more qualified. And, yes, there are conservative historians who don't suck Christ's toes every chance they get. But kickin' the Jesus jams is what this is about.
So there's the next battleground for the Christian right to shove their bible up the asses of schoolkids: social studies. The TFN helpfully points out: "The state board is scheduled to adopt revised social curriculum standards in March 2010. Publishers will use those standards to write new textbooks for Texas classrooms. The board is scheduled to adopt those new social studies textbooks in 2012."
Again and again, the Rude Pundit has said that when other states make their students stupid, they are inflicting that stupid on the rest of the nation. The rest of us have to deal with the arrested intellects of your bible-beaten zomboids, shrinking ranks though they may be. Fuck, Marshall doesn't even believe that Christian kids should get a public school education unless they have to walk between Jesus's legs to get into the classroom.
Now, what's the argument for not just letting Texas fuckin' bail on the U.S.?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
