By now you’ve probably seen the ad featuring Michael J. Fox (if not, click here).  As you probably know, Fox is a Parkinson’s sufferer, so it likely comes as little surprise that he supports a candidate who favors stem cell research over one who does not.  In fact, this is so clear a case of enlightened self-interest that I really don’t quite grasp Hugh Hewitt’s dark insinuations of a hidden agenda:

There’s a new Michael J. Fox ad on stem cell research that supports Claire McCaskill’s campaign. Click over and watch it. It will take you only 30 seconds, and I promise I’ll still be here when you get back.

Will you, Hugh?  What about that time I wanted to pop into Williams Sonoma for five minutes just to grab a new egg whisk and you promised you’d be waiting at the bench across from the One Potato Two?  You broke my heart, Hugh. 

By way of response, let me first say that I think almost any kind of ad in support of a political campaign is fair game.

Less fair, but safer game are political ads showcasing short men with severe neurological disorders, because it’s much less likely that they’ll later buttonhole you in the Pump Room and punch you in the solar plexus until you vomit breast of pheasant and a split of Pouilly-Fuisse all over your wingtips.

If a candidate goes too far, the public will punish him or her.

“…I recommend forcing the candidate to wear the ballet boots and a three-strap penis cage.  Mistress well proved their curative powers the last time I stepped out of line.  In fact, add an uncomfortably tight latex scrotum snood and a couple of alligator clips on the man-boobs, and you’d see a renaissance of civility and bi-partisanship that would shock you like a cattleprod to the colon.  But I digress.”

So while I find the Michael J. Fox ad crass, tasteless, exploitative and absurd, I fully support Claire McCaskill’s right to shoot herself in the foot.

Right.  While Rush’s assertion that Fox was faking his symptons in order to garner sympathy can only be regarded as a high five-worthy coup of informed commentary. 

The most distasteful aspect of the ad is the way it exploits Michael J. Fox’s physical difficulties. Fox is an actor, and clearly knew what he was doing when he signed up for the spot - no victim points for him for having been manipulated by the McCaskill campaign. The ad’s aim is to make us feel so bad about Fox’s condition that logical debate is therefore precluded. You either agree with Fox, or you sadistically endorse his further suffering as Fox accuses Jim Talent of doing.

Hugh has apparently peeked over at Ann Coulter’s Composition Blue Book, since this reeks of her belief that anyone who confronts Republicans with the results of their ideological extremism represents a violation of the rules of war, since right wing pundits “aren’t allowed to respond.”  How dare Michael J. Fox have Parkinson’s in public?  How dare he support politicians who believe in funding research that may one day relieve his symptons.  How are you supposed to argue with that?  It’s not like those clumps of eight frozen cells in a petrie dish are gonna get off their lazy nuclei and shoot a counter-ad.  In Hugh’s day, palsied cripples stayed in their rooms and wasted away with dignity, or at least kept their heads down and their mouths shut in public in the hopes that — at best — people wouldn’t notice their shameful condition, and — at worst — would mistake them for Joe Cocker.

And what’s all this crap about “The ad’s aim is to make us feel so bad about Fox’s condition that logical debate is therefore precluded”?  I apologize if I’ve missed a great Fundamentalist Spockfest at some point, but so far the “logical” arguments against stem cell research seem to begin and end with the premise that frozen blastocytes, floating in the nurturing, womb-like confines of a Petrie dish, have an immortal soul to go along with their freezer burn.  This assertion may be many things — poetic, profound, intensely creepy — yet “logical” wouldn’t seem to top the list.  If that’s the sum total of their rational argument, then I would hazard to say Hugh and the other faithful are venerating the wrong trinity.  They’d probably get more bang for their tithe by worshipping The Father (Clarence Birdseye), the Son (Julius Richard Petrie), and the Holy Ghost Rider (Nicholas Cage).

This is demagoguery analogous to the pernicious and pathetic chickenhawk argument. The whole “chickenhawk” logic is that only people who have served in the military are entitled to have an opinion on military matters. Thus, the ideas of non-veterans don’t warrant a hearing and thus don’t need rebutting.

Actually, Hugh, I think that’s the plot of Starship Troopers.  The chickenhawk argument, as I understand it, is that men like Bush and Cheney, who avoided harzardous service in their youth, should have the minimal decency to hesitate before  sending today’s young people into a similar quagmire.  Additionally, it holds that people who are currently of military age (Jonah, put down that HoHo, I’m looking at you) and who agitate in support of a war of choice have a moral obligation to support that war with more than a pro forma shake of the pom poms.

While Michael J. Fox (like me) has some skin in the stem cell game

Let’s all pause, bow our heads, and observe a moment of silence in honor of Hugh’s stillborn witticism.

…that most people don’t, that doesn’t give him any special appreciation of the moral issues involved with embryonic stem cell research.  Sick people may want cures and treatments more than the healthy population, but that doesn’t make them/us experts on morality.

Yeah, sick people have no skin in the morality game.  Which is why Jesus was so often seen hitching up the hem of his robes and scurrying to cross the street whenever he had the misfortune to stumble over the lame or the leperous.

The ad’s disingenuousness also merits consideration. While Fox mentions “stem cell research,” the word “embryonic” is strangely lacking. Given that the entire debate centers on the ethics and morality of embryonic stem cell research, this omission is noteworthy.

Would it be disingenuous to point out that not all stem cell research involves embryonic stem cells?  Probably.  But that still doesn’t relieve Democrats of their obligation to use the terms of debate as defined by Hugh.  If this sort of thing isn’t nipped in the bud, the next thing you know, people will be using the medical term “intact dilation and extraction,” just because it was coined by a physician, instead of “partial birth abortion,” which as everyone knows is the correct term, because it was coined by a congressman from Florida.

AS FAR AS FOX IS CONCERNED, I feel bad for him. The ad is shot to carefully record the sounds of the spasticity brought on by his condition. It’s gut-wrenching to see the star in such a condition.

Hear that, Mr. Spastic?  Hugh doesn’t forgive you, but he does pity you.

But it’s strange that Fox has so eagerly bought the promises of the stem cell research community. If Fox thinks that stem cell research offers him (or me) hope, he’s mistaken. Stem cell research, both embryonic and otherwise, right now represents nothing more than a promising theory.

“I still can’t get over how people repeatedly fall for that whole “electricity” sham.  Sure, incandescent lighting is a promising theory, but I really think we should pull the funding, because if burning olive oil was good enough for our Lord and Savior, it ought to be good enough to run our computers.”

If it bears fruit, and that’s a huge “if”, it will likely do so too late to benefit Fox, me, and our contemporaries. In spite of the silky rhetoric of John Edwards-type politicians, dramatic medical innovations come slowly and take decades to pan out, not months.

“So there’s no point in getting the research started now, because even if it does pan out, it’ll be too late to help me.  Whereas if I continue to demagogue the issue, I’ll get real world political benefits in the here and now.  So screw you, Future Spazzes!”

One last note on Michael J. Fox. Unlike Fox, I’ve been a sick person all my life.

Must….resist…cheap…shot…!

Like most sick people who try to define their lives by something other than their illness, I’ve always recoiled at pity and even sympathy. 

“Of course, I’m not above abusing someone for using a personal tragedy to illuminate a larger social issue and then turning around and milking my own misfortune in an effort to immunize myself against any criticism my callousness might arouse.”

Personally, I find there to be something extremely disquieting about the way Fox has chosen to use his condition to bully voters into feeling bad for him and thus support his political positions.

It’s almost as if President Bush invited the widows of first responders to backdrop one of his political speeches, or used the badge of a dead police officer as a prop during a State of the Union speech, then took it back to the White House and used it to try to decode the secret messages from Ovaltine.

Speaking of disingenuous, Hugh, do you really want to pretend that using an emotional response to drum up support for your policies is illegitimate?  Because that shoves the last five or six years of Republican politicking out onto some rather thin ethical ice.

People know when they’re being manipulated.

 ”And I wish they’d stop, because this is the only playbook I’ve got, and it’s just…not…WORKING!”

This ad with its heavy-handed emphasis on Fox’s suffering will succeed in making Fox an object of sympathy and pity, but because of its naked crassness, it will not be a political success.

“…at least not if Clarence Birdseye answers my prayers.” 

As for Claire McCaskill, who has chosen to conclude her campaign in this manner, she will get no sympathy or pity from these quarters. Only contempt.

The fact that your quarters are bare of compassion and empathy don’t exactly come as a news flash, Hugh.   But I gotta admire the way you cleaned Wal*Mart out of their 5 gallon tubs of contempt.

UPDATE:  As TS of Tristram-Shandy points out, Hugh’s Townhall column, was actually written by his acolyte, Dean Barnett.  Which I should have known, since Dean (who suffers from cystic fibrosis) is the go-to guy whenever Hugh and his posse need to dash a little cold water on the embers of condolence.  So Hugh picked a spokesperson who, in Ann Coulter’s words, we’re “not allowed to respond to,” in order to complain that Claire McCaskill picked a spokesperson Hugh isn’t allowed to respond to.

Anyway, I was angry and leaped into the fray without doublechecking the byline.  And I should have known better, since Dan has previously floated several of the more reprehensible points above.  On August 25, in a piece titled “The Stem Cell Hustle,” Dan wrote in Hugh’s column:

AND THAT’S WHERE THE EXAGGERATED promise of the stem cell debate comes in. Virtually every doctor or researcher you talk to, and I’ve talked to a bunch, agrees that stem cell research holds out great promise for the future. It’s an avenue they’d love to see explored. It’s also a new science, and one that if it bears fruits, won’t likely do so for quite some time.

And apparently he had a gripe against Michael J. Fox long before the McCaskill ad, since he wrote in the same piece:

Pushed along by political interests who relish the chance to devalue the fetus, stem cell therapy has come to represent a panacea for the hopeless and the ignorant who understandably choose false hope over no hope. But, you have to wonder, what level of awareness do Michael J. Fox and Ronald Reagan Jr. have about the cause they so relentlessly tout?

Anyway, since this is at least the second time Hugh has allowed Dan to use his column to tell tomorrow’s victims of catastrophic disease to Suck It, I’ve decided not to rewrite this post, on the logical assumption that Bartlett’s words reflect the opinions of the management.

Wingnuts | 26 Comments »

Kids, in today’s Storytime, Dr. Mike will address one of our society’s most pressing issues: the refusal of the meanies at UNCW to promote Dr. Mike to full professor status. See, since Dr. Mike is the best professor in the whole world, he assumed that he didn’t get the promotion just because he regularly writes columns about how everyone at UNCW (except him) sucks. However, it turns out that the meanies just think that he’s ”deficient in all areas.” Which Dr. Mike took to be code for:

THE POWERS THAT BE AT UNCW ARE PUNISHING ME FOR MY PUBLIC CRITICISM OF THE UNCW DIVERSITY MOVEMENT.

So, he’s decided to be a bigger asshole than usual, in an effort to demonstrate to his colleagues just how wrong they were to not promote him.

And that resolve leads us to today’s real, actual, true-life stories, ripped directly from the day-to-day experiences of Dr. Mike. Follwing each story you will find several study questions– although you won’t be graded on your responses, you should do your best to answer them, since they will help you to prepare for your Wingnuts of Academia final exam.

So, kids, let’s all put on our listening caps and pay close attention to My Apology to UNC-Wilmington::By Mike S. Adams.(Remember, students, no cell phones, no political correctness, no gay marriage, no hippies, and no vaginas will be permitted during class.)

Today, I begin my new career as a diversity proponent by telling you three stories – each one about a different UNCW student whose life was forever changed by the diversity movement at UNCW.

The first story is of Ashley (not real name) – a girl I met the other day in the parking lot by the Cameron School of Business. When I first saw her, she was making out with her boyfriend in his Chevy Blazer right in front of the entrance to the parking lot. I waited until the line of cars behind me was eight deep before I even thought about tapping the horn lightly to let the young couple know they were holding up cars waiting to get in the rapidly filling lot.

Just before I hit the horn, she got out of the Blazer and started to walk away. After three steps, though, she decided to return to the Blazer for one last kiss. That’s when I tapped the horn as lightly as possible to let her know there were other people in the world besides her and her boyfriend.

But, apparently, Ashley didn’t like that little tap on the horn. After she slammed the door of the Blazer she shot me the middle finger and shouted “f—k you!” at the top of her lungs. But she wasn’t through. After taking a few steps, she stopped, turned around, and flipped me the bird again shouting “f—k you!” as loud as she could.

So, naturally, I did what any white heterosexual Christian male would do under the circumstances. I kept a close eye on her, parked as fast as possible, and chased her down before she got inside the Cameron School of Business. When I caught up to her, I thanked her for her contribution to diversity at UNCW. The cultural norms regarding consideration of others and use of profanity and crude hand gestures in public are all antiquated norms developed by an oppressive white Christian patriarchy. By rebelling against them, she was showing us that each individual must carve out her own way of doing things, regardless of the tradition of the dominant culture.

Of course Dr. Mike is just kidding about what he said to “Ashley.”  But do you believe that a student really did shout “f—k you” at the top of her lungs at Dr. Mike, twice even, just because he tapped his horn “as lightly as possible” after she and her boyfriend backed up traffic for several minutes while they made out? Okay, if you believe that part, do you believe that Dr. Mike actually did chase her down before she got inside the Cameron School of Business?  And then what happened?  Did he devastate her with a witty rejoinder, have her expelled for sassing an almost full professor, or did he shoot her with one of the many weapons he keeps in his car for just such an occasion?

Anyway, on to story two:

I kicked Eric out of one of my classes the other day for bring a cell phone into a test. He ran down to the office to put the cell phone on the secretary’s desk in our main office and then ran back to get seated before I passed out the exam. But, unfortunately, after the test was over Eric found out his cell phone had been accidentally locked in the secretary’s filing cabinet. That’s when Eric showed us that he has a unique perspective on the laws of trespassing and intentional destruction of personal property.

Without hesitation, Eric began pulling on the file cabinet door in an effort to break the lock and recapture his cell phone. He knows that the laws he was breaking were written by white Christian men who probably owned slaves. Not only that but he was ten minutes overdue to call his girlfriend. If he didn’t call her soon, he knew he wouldn’t get any action later on that night. Eric likes to fornicate outside the confines of marriage in order to contribute to the diversity movement’s emphasis on sexual freedom. Since he’s white and he isn’t gay, his ability to celebrate diversity is somewhat limited.

Okay, what elements of THIS story do you think are true? Did Dr. Mike kick Eric out of his class? Did the secretary “accidentally” lock Eric’s phone in a filing cabinet? Did Eric really try to break the lock on said cabinet? Is it true that Eric likes fornicating outside the confines of marriage? If so, how does Dr. Mike know?

Now, we go to our last little anecdote about how UNC students are all a bunch of uncouth, obnoxious, low-lifes who don’t deserve an upstanding Christian professor like Dr. Mike:

And, finally, there is Chastity (definitely not real name). She came to UNCW last year as a very conservative Christian girl from a rural area. But, this year, her life has taken a different turn. My wife ran across her profile on the Internet and found pictures of her smoking pot out of a water bong. She had also posted comments (in chat rooms) littered with the f-word and every other imaginable form of profanity. And she posted pictures of herself – always holding a beer bottle or a shot glass – with her breasts falling out of her shirt.

After just one year at UNCW this nice conservative Christian girl has turned into a pot-smoking, foul-mouthed, drunken slut. And that’s cause for celebration at the Diversity Office where kids are encouraged to discard their parents’ values in exchange for the philosophy of moral relativism.

What parts of this story strike you as possibly embellished or totally fabricated?  Maybe Mrs. Dr. Mike really did “run across” the profile of a girl whom the Dr. Mikes know used to be a very conservative Christian from a rural area (it’s possible that she was seeking Jonah Goldberg’s Myspace profile, and accidentally found the one of a girl she used to teach in Sunday School class). But it seems like quite a coincidence that Mrs. Dr. Mike would also run across the slut’s comments in various chat rooms, plus all the photos of the hussy flaunting her large, firm, escaping breasts. So, we must ask ourselves: is Mrs. Mike stalking the foul-mouthed little former Christian skank, or does Mrs. Mike just hang out in chat rooms and photo sites devoted to unprincipled debauchery (possibly “Good Christians Looking for Sluts, ” or maybe “Professors’ Wives Hoping to Go Wild”)? We must also ask ourselves if Dr. Mike actually has a wife anymore?

Anyway, while you consider these matters, I am going to do what I can to start a telethon, because the plight of university employees who don’t get promoted to full professor status is one of the most pathetic things I’ve ever encountered.  I’m hoping to get a celebrity to sponsor the event — and if we all keep our fingers crossed, maybe Dr. Mike can be one of Jerry’s kids.

With Dr. Mike | 27 Comments »

The Batman (1943)

Chapter Three:  Mark of the Zombies!

So far, the two big cliffhangers have involved The Batman falling (Click here and here for the tedious details).  This time, however, they spice it by having our frequently plummeting hero drag Linda to her death along with him, as the two falling lovers unite to squash Robin.

How does The Batman survive this time?  Honestly, I haven’t a clue.  It appears that Robin throws The Batman a line as he plunges 32 feet per second per second, he catches it, performs the Indian Rope Trick in mid-air, then shins safely down to the ground with his unconscious girlfriend still draped around his shoulders like a fleshy shrug.  Of course, due to the Ritalin-deprived editing, I can’t be entirely certain this is what happened, but I’m pretty sure I saw Hadji do a similar thing once on Jonny Quest.

As you recall, in the previous episode, Daka’s Chief Thug (CT) also performed a bit of legerdemain, grabbing a live wire barehanded and magically using it to turn an ordinary steel cable into that fuse from the opening credits of Mission: Impossible! (so apparently The Batman’s nemesis isn’t Dr. Daka, it’s Doug Henning).  Anyway, having failed to kill the Caped Crusader by electrocuting himself, CT suddenly remembers that he has a gun, and – feeling a little sheepish, I’m guessing – pulls it out and starts shooting, but it’s too little, too late.

The other thugs predict that Daka won’t be pleased, but CT hotly retorts, “I’m not afraid of him or any other squint eye!”  (Meaning, I presume, that he is also not afraid of Robert Newton’s Long John Silver from Treasure Island.)  So while CT is a traitor, a saboteur, and a murderer, at least deep down he’s still American enough to take pride in his eyes’ lack of an epicanthic fold.

(more…)

Movies | 9 Comments »

Or something like that.

Anyway, Pat Robertson has apparently heard about those nasty things that the White House was saying about him, but being a Christian, he turns the other cheek, and damns the President with: faint praise; criticism about his speaking ability and mentality; and the news that they prayed together.

Here’s the NewsMax recap of Pat’s interview with Worldnews.org:

Robertson Praises, Criticizes Bush

President Bush is a “good man” who has done much of what he hoped he would do, says the Rev. Pat Robertson.

The founder and chairman of the Christian Broadcasting Network is quick to add that the president has let him down on some issues, however. [...]

Turning to the Iraq war, Robertson said: “I think he missed it on this Iraq war. And I believe the fact that he does not seek counsel as he should is a mistake, and for some reason he is not a terribly articulate spokesperson.

“He is not an eloquent speaker. He has a hard time getting his points across.”

He added that the president’s leadership style betrays “a circle-the-wagons mentality — that anybody who disagrees with him is in trouble.”

So, who’s insane NOW, Mr. Bush?

Robertson confided that he has met with Bush in the past, revealing that “We’ve prayed together. He’s a born-again believer. In that respect he’s a good guy. But he’s also a politician and there’s things he’s done, he’s signed bills into law that he should not have signed.”

Yes, President Bush is a good guy in that he prayed with Pat and made him beautiful promises; but, on the other hand, he’s a politician who broke those promises. So, I guess you could say that Bush is going to hell.

Now, for the part of the interview where Pat proves his mental health is just fine, thank you.

Robertson also told WordNews that his call last year for the assassination of Chavez, which created a media firestorm, was vindicated by Chavez’s outrageous behavior at the U.N. when he called Bush “the devil.”

“The devil came here yesterday,” Chavez said then. “And it smells of sulfur still today.”

WordNews recalled that Robertson was criticized for calling for Chavez’s assassination, saying in August 2005: “If he [Chavez] thinks we’re trying to assassinate him, I think we really ought to go ahead and do it. It’s a whole lot cheaper than starting a war.”

In response to the clamor for an apology, Robertson backed down a few days later, saying: “Is it right to call for assassination? No, and I apologize for that statement. I spoke in frustration that we should accommodate the man who thinks the U.S. is out to kill him.”

Now, however, he says that he feels that Chavez’s comments at the U.N. have vindicated him.

“I think a lot of Christians are saying to themselves, ‘Pat was right,’” Robertson told WordNews.

So, per Pat, many Christians believe that if somebody calls you names, it’s right and just to call for their assassination.

You know, now that the Evangelicals know what the White House says about them behind their backs, I think some officials should be watching their own backs. Just a word to the wise.

Uncategorized | 7 Comments »

THIS IS YOUR CITY, UNLESS YOU VOTE REPUBLICAN

Alternate slogan: “Nice house you got there — be a shame if Bin Laden nuked it because you voted for the wrong candidate.”

Anyway, here’s the info about the actual new ad, courtesy of NewsMax.

 Osama Bin Laden Featured in GOP TV Ad

The Republican Party will begin airing a hard-hitting ad this weekend that warns of more cataclysmic terror attacks against the U.S. homeland.

The ad portrays Osama bin Laden and quotes his threats against America dating to February 1998. “These are the stakes,” the ad concludes. “Vote November 7.”

The ad displays an array of quotes from bin Laden and his top lieutenant, Ayman al-Zawahri, that include bin Laden’s Dec. 26, 2001 vow that “what is yet to come will be even greater.”

The ad also cites al-Zawahri’s claim to have obtained “some suitcase bombs,” followed by a scene that appears to show a nuclear explosion.

Despite al-Zawahri’s claim, portable nuclear devices are believed to be particularly difficult to produce and elusive to rogue regimes and terror groups.

The ad is also featured on the RNC’s Web site. The party said the ad, called “The Stakes,” will be e-mailed to millions of GOP supporters, activists and the state parties.

Democrats denounced the ad as scaremongering.

“Scaremongering”?  Good golly no!  It’s just a reminder that Bin Laden hates our freedom so much that he will kill you unless you vote the way you’re told.

Uncategorized | 5 Comments »

Sure, you and I think of Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh as “conservative entertainers,” or “right-wing propagandists,” or “really bad people who say incredibly stupid, vile things.” But it seems that George Bush and Dick Cheney think the two blowhards are credible journalists, and gave them both interviews this week.

Here’s a bit from the second part of Bill O’Reilly’s Exclusive Interview with President Bush:

O’REILLY: Is water boarding torture?

BUSH: I don’t want to talk about techniques. [...]

O’REILLY: But if the public doesn’t know what torture is or is not, as defined by the Bush administration, how can the public make a decision on whether your policy is right or wrong?

BUSH: Well, one thing is that you can rest assured we’re not going to talk about the techniques we use in a public forum. No matter how hard you try because I don’t want the enemy to be able to adjust their tactics if we capture them on the battlefield.

But what the American people need to know is we’ve got a program in place that is able to get intelligence from these people. And we’ve used it to stop attacks.

Translation: “You can’t make me talk about the torture, Bill, no matter now hard you try!  Anyway, all the damned American people need to know is that we’re ‘questioning’ bad guys to keep them safe!”

But now, on to the President’s new “Freedom From Constitutional Rights” program:

BUSH: The Supreme Court ruled that the president didn’t have the authority to set up these courts on his own, that he needed to work with Congress to do so. And we did.

Anyway, what’s interesting about these votes that took place in the Congress is the number of Democrats that opposed questioning people we’ve picked up on the battlefield. And I think that’s an issue that they’re going to have to explain to the American people.

Yeah, if you’re opposed to torture, or against the suspension of habeas corpus, then you’re against questioning terrorists.  YOU would probably take Osama to Disneyland instead of asking him about his various plots, and the American people should question your patriotism, you damned Democrat!

Not that the President would ever question anyone’s patriotism, you understand.

O’REILLY: Do you think Hillary Clinton is soft on terrorism?

BUSH: I think — first of all it’s very important for me never to, you know, question anybody’s patriotism.

This next part of Bush’s answer is kind of boring, so allow me to paraphrase the President’s comments:

But we’re at WAR, a real war against evil bad guys. That’s why I authorized intercepting the phone calls of Al Qaeda villains who are, even as we speak, using their Sprint “Friends and Plotters” minutes to discuss their plans to murder you in your sleep. And that’s also why I believe we should ask captured terrorists about their plan to nuke your daughter’s elementary school, even if said questioning might involve a little so-called “torture. However, Hillary thinks it’s more important to be “legal” than to prevent your fiery, agonizing death. And she says there is no war, just like she claims that there was no moon landing.

End Paraphrase

I strongly disagree. And so does Usama bin Laden, and Mr. Zawahiri, sworn enemies of the United States, who would like to attack us again. And that’s the fundamental difference of attitude. I’m never going to question anybody’s patriotism.

But I am going to say there’s different point of view here in Washington, D.C. And the American people get — they got a choice to make coming this November. And I believe the choice is stark and clear.

Translation: “The people can either vote Republican, and continue the fight against evil, or they can vote Democratic, and pave the way for an Islamofascist conquest of United States, leading to the end of life as we know it. But hey, American People, it’s your choice! Don’t let me tell you how to vote.”

Tomorrow, Bill asks the President why people keep saying mean things about Bill, and wonders why these smearers haven’t yet been sent to Gitmo. 

Or, as Bill puts it:

O’REILLY: Now tomorrow, we’ll talk with President Bush about the personal attacks leveled against him and the fact that many people think he’s a religious fanatic. 

I wonder if Bill will ask Mr. Bush if he calls himself a nut behind his back, and if he tries to manipulate himself by using religion.

But anyway, over to the Rush/Dick Show.

Basically, Rush and Dick Cheney congratulated each other on how well the economy now works for rich people; hinted that the terrorists are plotting to destroy big chunks of Iraq before the election, just to get you to vote for Democratic candidates; and then chatted about how, despite what those jerks in the media and their stupid polls may tell you, the Republican Party will triumph yet again this November, because REAL Americans think the GOP is doing a great job.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: I think it’s easy to sit in Washington and sort of absorb the vibes coming from the national media, but that doesn’t represent necessarily what’s going on out there around the country. When you get out on the ground talking with real people about real problems, their hopes and desires for their families and for the nation, as well as their appreciation for what we’ve been able to accomplish over the last six years, you get a very positive feeling.

I just want to know when Cheney has ever been out on the ground talking to real people about ANYTHING. (Dick, those people they arrange for you to speak with at those canned town meetings are kinda like those quail you shoot at those canned hunts. And the positive feelings you get from both events are equally based on self-deception, you putz.)

P.S.  Now, here’s a little contest for you: caption this Fox News Photo, and you could win valuable imaginary prizes!

UPDATE:  The link to the photo isn’t working, but it’s the pic from the transcript of Bill’s interview with the Prez, showing the two of them chatting before a fireplace.  (You can click on the photo to make it larger.)  I just thought that it would be interesting to know what you think the two of them are REALLY talking about in that scene.

Uncategorized | 25 Comments »

TorgoKitty is still sick. He keeps fooling me by looking like he’s all better (which he demonstrates by attacking my foot, climbing up my leg, and then demanding food), but then he has another bout of bad diarrhea, resulting in the need to both bathe him and to move to a new, unsoiled house.

Today I did all the home remedies, and fed him only chicken baby food, and although we haven’t had any incidents since this morning, he just doesn’t seem to be his usual evil self. So, tomorrow it’s back to the vet (he was just there a couple of weeks ago for his last kitten shots).

So, that said, let’s pay a short visit our old friend Dr. Professor Mike Adams, Ph.D., who tells us that he is Preparing for Pelosi by buying more guns. (Not to shoot her, you silly goose, but because he fears that a Democrat-controlled Congress will ban products made by Springfield Armory, and he needs to stock up on their find products so he can kill hitchhikers without any help from the federal government.)

(This column was paid for by the Springfield Armory, which wishes to remind you that guns are the only friends that money can buy.)

Anyway, I liked this bit from Dr. Mike’s little infomercial:

First and foremost, I plan to stock up on 13-round magazines for my main home and car defense weapon – the .45 ACP XD by Springfield. These magazines will be almost as rare as a feminist orgasm if the Democrats take over.

If Dr. Mike knows as much about guns as he does about female orgasms, including feminist orgasms, I believe I’d think twice about purchasing whatever ammo he is pushing.

But this was my favorite part:

Before the recent poll numbers indicating a possible change in leadership – in both the House and Senate – I was focusing strictly on gun purchases designed to improve my versatility as a hunter. Since people often call from around the country to invite me hunting I always have to be prepared to take anything from the smallest squirrel to the largest grizzly bear. Now, I’m thinking a lot more about tactical and self-defense models.

I have a hard time believing that people from all around the country frequently call Dr. Mike and invite him to go shooting grizzly bears with them. Sure, there was that time when Doug Giles did invite him to go shoot some deer at the petting zoo, and maybe one of his other friends let him help as the friend shot an itty bitty squirrel that was menacing the neighborhood — but until I see some proof, I’m going to have to believe that these invitations to go grizzly bear hunting are about as real as Dr. Mike’s correspondents, his real-life adventures, and his devastating ripostes to the liberal hippies he is always encountering.

But maybe that’s just me.

With Dr. Mike | 17 Comments »

My household has been dealing with a recurrence of the dreaded “explosive kitten diarrhea,” and because of all the associated cleaning (of carpets, walls, bedspreads, couches, kittens, etc), tonight I am too tired to find anything much to blog about.

But here are a few brief items that I found rather interesting:

First, here’s are some selections from Bush aides called evangelicals ‘nuts,’ ‘goofy’, WorldNetDaily’s article about David Kuo’s book Tempting Faith. 

Asked if White House officials really mocked conservative Christians, Kuo told Lesley Stahl, “Oh, absolutely. You name the important Christian leader and I have heard them mocked by serious people in serious places.”

Specifically, Kuo says people in the White House political affairs office referred to Pat Robertson as “insane,” Jerry Falwell as “ridiculous” and that James Dobson “had to be controlled.”

[…]

The White House calls Kuo’s book “ridiculous” […].

And presumably, the WH also stated that Kuo was insane, and has to be controlled. But hey, that stuff that Kuo said that they said about Robertson, Falwell, and Dobson is completely untrue!

Anyway, although it seems to me that the most explosive charges in the book deal with the way that religion was cynically made to serve political ends, the wingnuts seem most outraged at being called names. For example, here’s part of a column by Jason T. Christy, publisher of the Christian conservative magazine The Church Report:

David Kuo, a former deputy in the White House Office of the Faith Based Initiative, has taken it upon himself to author a book where he maintains that the Faith Based Initiative falls terribly short of it promise and that White House officials routinely mock prominent Evangelicals describing them as: “nuts, goofy and boorish.”

And for taking upon himself to maintain such things, Christy has declared Kuo to be “an addition to the Axis of Evil.”  (Seriously.  In fact, Christy titled his piece “David Kuo: An Additon to the Axis of Evil.”)

But Kuo has done more than say that WH officials describe Evangelicals as goofy, boorish, nuts.  Much more!

Don’t be fooled by Kuo; he is someone who has been described as a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” Don’t let his smarmy tones and pouty eyes fool you. Having done campaign work for several Kennedys, having contradicted himself and his own letters, Kuo is being used to try and prop up the liberal left, to breathe life into lifeless campaigns and his master literary work is a mere smokescreen. Questioning the faith and motivation of this administration is wrong.

Pouty eyes???

But remember, my children, you must NEVER question this administration’s motivations, because doing so makes you just as bad as Iraq, Iran, or North Korea.  And we all know what happened to Saddam after he question the Bush White House’s motivations (the talk about him having WMDs was just a clever ruse to cover the real reason for the invasion)!

But anyway, speaking of James Dobson, it seems that he will be safely on a cruise ship in the Alaskan waters this summer. (Another Focus on the Family moneymaker, or a White House ploy to control the Dobster? YOU make the call!)

Focus on the Family Alaska Cruise – 2007

I ‘m excited to announce that Focus on the Family is planning an Alaskan cruise in July 2007 – we’d love to have you join us! […]

I’m pleased to report that we already have a stellar line-up of speakers and singers who have committed to the cruise: Dr. James Dobson, Focus President and CEO Jim Daly, Dr. Emerson and Sarah Eggerichs, and a special humorist to be announced later.

Anybody have any guesses as to who the “special humorist” might be? (I’m thinking that it might be Ann Coulter, but having her on the same boat as Dobson might be tempting God a little too much).

Oh, and speaking of cynically using non-profits for political ends, it seems that ol’ Jack Abramoff was doing just that. Here’s part of the Wash Post’s story on one of the many, many ongoing Republican scandals.

Report Says Nonprofits Sold Influence to Abramoff

Five conservative nonprofit organizations, including one run by prominent Republican Grover Norquist, “appear to have perpetrated a fraud” on taxpayers by selling their clout to lobbyist Jack Abramoff, Senate investigators said in a report issued yesterday.

The Senate report released yesterday states that the nonprofit groups probably violated their tax-exempt status “by laundering payments and then disbursing funds at Mr. Abramoff’s direction; taking payments in exchange for writing newspaper columns or press releases that put Mr. Abramoff’s clients in a favorable light; introducing Mr. Abramoff’s clients to government officials in exchange for payment; and agreeing to act as a front organization for congressional trips paid for by Mr. Abramoff’s clients.”

The report bolstered earlier revelations that Abramoff laundered money through the nonprofits to pay for congressional trips and paid Norquist to arrange meetings for Abramoff’s clients with government officials including White House senior adviser Karl Rove.

The groups named in the report are Norquist’s Americans for Tax Reform; the Council of Republicans for Environmental Advocacy, which was co-founded by Norquist and Gale Norton before she became secretary of the interior; Citizens Against Government Waste; the National Center for Public Policy Research, a spinoff of the Heritage Foundation; and Toward Tradition, a Seattle-based religious group founded by Rabbi Daniel Lapin.

Et tu, Heritage Foundation spin-off? And man, I can see using tax reform group, religious groups, and anti-government waste groups to launder money and pay for congressional trips, but I expected better of a Republican environmental group.

Here’s another interesting bit:

Abramoff traded on Norquist’s cachet, at one point referring to him in an e-mail as a “hard-won asset” of his lobbying empire. In exchange for Norquist’s opposition to taxes on Brown-Forman products, Norquist recommended that a $50,000 donation be made to Americans for Tax Reform, according to an Abramoff e-mail.

“What is most important, however, is that this matter is kept discreet,” Abramoff wrote to a colleague at the Preston, Gates & Ellis law firm. “We do not want the opponents to think that we are trying to buy the taxpayer movement.”

Heaven forbid that anyone ever get such an idea about Abramoff, or any of the people he was pimping out, such as his hard-won asset dear friend Grover!

Anyway, now that we all know just what Grover is, let’s find out his price.

Norquist wrote an op-ed piece, published in the Washington Times, as part of an extensive Abramoff campaign for Channel One, which broadcasts educational programming and advertising into public school classrooms. An Abramoff e-mail to Norquist offered him $1,500 for an op-ed, and another e-mail exchange suggested up to $3,000 to buy an “economic analysis.”

I don’t mean to criticize, but Jack could have had Jeff Gannon for the whole weekend for that price – and Jeff would have thrown in the op-ed for free!

And speaking of Jeff, you may recall that he managed to get an interview with Karl Rove. There was a lot of speculation about how he managed that, but it now seems that it was probably just a professional courtesy.

Uncategorized | 15 Comments »

David Kupelian, the managing editor of WorldNetDaily.com, has published one of his own articles over at WND.  It’s called “The war on fathers,” and it’s about how there is a war on fathers, in that men are portrayed as dopes in TV commericals and in sitcoms; boys don’t do as well in school as girls; and in custody cases, mothers get the kids more than fathers do.

So, yeah, it’s standard wingnut boilerplate.

But David throws in some original touches, and thus gives it the creamy WND nuttiness we’ve come to expect from the site that brought us the news about the Nephilim building the pyramids, warned you about “the long tentacles of the United Nations in your life,” and published a book for muscleheads.  (Fyi, Kevin McCullough’s column this week is entitled “Why Liberals Channel Lucifer,” so I think he was the correct choice for our las “Ann Coulter of the Week” award.)

Anyway, with no further ado, here’s David.

“Father knows best.”

How do those three words make you feel? Turn them over in your mind a couple of times and be aware of the subtlest of feelings. Be honest.

Do they make you feel slightly squeamish? A little discomfort in your solar plexus? Is something deep down inside you repelled by those words?

If so, then there’s something wrong with you, because GOD said that father knows best – and God is a man, so He would know.

In this confused era of feminized men who wear earrings and are embarrassed at their own masculinity, this may be hard to accept, but there really is a reason Jesus was a man and that all of His 12 disciples were men and that the Bible was written by men and that the vast majority of pastors, priests and rabbis are men.

I suppose David is going to claim that patriachal societies have nothing to do with it.

And that reason is not, as radical feminists insist, that a bunch of sexist, patriarchal pigs created the Christian religion just to enslave and control women. Rather, men were simply designed by the Creator to love and protect and defend and lead women and children – in every way, including spiritually. (And yes, I realize there were also very godly women surrounding Jesus, just as there are wonderfully righteous women around today, but the point is, it is men who are meant to bear the ultimate responsibility and burden of leadership.)

And ladies, the Creator designed you to need protection and leadership, and to make sandwiches for the men. So, it works out well for everyone.

But what if your husband is a big jerk who cheated on you with a young mistress, whom he tried to strangle – do you still have to make him sandwiches? 

Yes. Yes, you do. And you need to get rid of all that anger and “work through the issues”, because it’s the only way to save your marriage (and his congressional career).

But how many marriages could be saved if the offended spouse – the one pushing for the divorce, which is usually the wife – were just to learn to give up all that anger for the other?

And how many affairs could be saved if the offended mistress were just to learn to give up all that anger, drop her lawsuit, and shut the hell up?

While we bemoan “deadbeat dads,” let’s pause for a moment to ask ourselves a scary question: If a really great man, a Christ-like man, appeared on the scene – or someone even close – could we stand him?

I think that what David is saying is that Jesus had a deadbeat dad, but HE turned out okay. However, nobody today could stand Him, because our society hates men, thanks to ”Everybody Loves Raymond,” which made fathers look like whiny dummies.  Plus, we no longer properly appreicate the work of Robert Young, now that we know he was a mean drunk. 

(Or maybe David’s is referring to the Christ-like Mel Gibson, who is also a mean drunk whom nobody can stand — I’m not really sure.)

But in any case, even if Jesus was a deadbeat dad, it would be the radical feminists’ fault, for making the courts award unreasonable child support orders to scheming hussies who just have kids so they can screw men out of their paychecks.  And nobody can stand Jesus, because He’s locked up until he comes up with 20-year’s worth of back child support.

And now, the thrilling conclusion to “The War on Fathers.”

When we break the bond between fathers and their children, we’re breaking the bond between God the Father and our nation. When we restore that connection, our society will be healed. It’s as simple as that.

So, women, when you get a divorce, you are filing a restraining order against God, and prohibiting Him from coming within a thousand feet of America.  Little lady, do you really want to be the one who dooms our society this way?  If not, suck it up, and remember that Father Knows Best.

Uncategorized | 29 Comments »

Why is it always the movie stars who must suffer?

Gibson: ‘I Had My Rights Violated’ During ‘Passion’ Controversy

Mel Gibson insists his rights were violated by the criticism he received for his movie “The Passion of the Christ,” which resulted in resentment which surfaced the night he was arrested for drink driving.

The Oscar winner was arrested on July 28 and subsequently went on an anti-Semitic rant targeted at his arresting officers.

Gibson told “Good Morning America” host Diane Sawyer he has been angry for most of his life, but didn’t realise the extent of the anger he still had over accusations that his 2004 film featured anti-Semitic imagery.

He explains, “The other place it may have come from is, as you know, a couple of years ago I released the film ‘Passion.’

“Even before anyone saw a frame of the film, for an entire year, I was subjected to a pretty brutal sort of public beating.

“During the course of that, I think I probably had my rights violated in many different ways as an American. You know, as an artist, as a Christian. Just a human being, you know.”

What a harrowing tale of brutality, disenfranchisement, and whining!  When will this country do something to protect the right of our artists, Christians, and human beings to avoid having their movies criticized?

And this just confirms what I’ve always believed: Jesus had nothing over Mel when it comes to suffering (and you know, it was the Jews who crucified both of them).

Uncategorized | 16 Comments »