And in This Corner!!

JONAH "THE RAVING ASSHOLE" GOLDBERG!!!

So, some of you, the lucky ones, may be going through life blissfully unaware of the existence of living piece of shit Jonah Goldberg. If you are such a person I encourage you to stop reading now, and continue to enjoy life untainted. Anyway, Jonah has been making waves again lately because he got a big book advance because his last work of fuckwitatude "Liberal Fascism" was a huge hit among the Irony-Free demographic. Now, I think a lot of this is sour grapes; if sour grapes is acknowledging that a liberal could never get a Million Dollar advance after writing a work of such Monumental Intellectual Dishonesty like the steaming heap of shit that is Liberal Fascism. But, Hey!, some of us just pick the wrong ideology.

Anyway, fuck all that, a while ago, on my old blog, I did a remark by remark rebuttal of a particularly offensive column of Rich Lowry's, and though it did absolutely no good, it did make me feel better. So, I thought I might give Jonah the same treatment. Warning. This is going to be a long one...

One of the most important points of this column over the years — other than my belly, my dog, fair Jessica, my need for a raise, the fact that I have the upper-body strength of an eight-year-old girl and the lung capacity of a Polish whoopee cushion — is my aversion to clichéd thinking.

Ha! Polish whoopee cushion. This guy kills me.

In debates with readers, colleagues, college audiences, et al. the monitor on my internal respect-o-meter flat-lines every time I hear someone say, for instance, "better ten guilty men go free than one innocent man be punished."

Part of the reason Jonah sells so well to the Irony-Free crowd, I suspect, is because he is one of them. Throughout this column he demonstrates an inability to think metaphorically. Wow, that was a reasonable point. Let me restate that. Jonah Goldberg is an ignorant fuckwit that can't understand Any Philosophical Argument. And apparently he only knows Liberals who can't back up their arguments, which is understandable.

In order to explain what I'm talking about let me repeat my objection to this phrase.

It's not so much that this isn't true. Maybe it is. Maybe it is better that ten confirmed rapists and murderers be set loose on the streets to murder and rape again rather than lock up one innocent guy along with the ten menaces to society. Maybe we will all accept it as the price of liberty when your mother is subsequently raped or your son is shot because, hey, better the rapists and murderers go free than the unlucky go to jail.

Oh, such a pretty Strawman, but wait, he's just getting started.

But, it seems to me, there's an argument to be had here. Isn't there? Let me provide a very quick-guided tour of the obvious. According to the best social scientists and criminologists, career criminals commit a great many crimes over their lifetimes. Indeed, that's why we call them "career criminals" — they've made a career of it. Career accountants have, in all likelihood, prepared many tax returns and we can expect them to prepare many more. So it is with career criminals who've committed many crimes: We can expect them to commit many more. This is why I call prison "the bad people place."

"The Bad People Place." I think we all now know the intellectual level of Jonah. Would you like a ba-ba with your ideology, you fuck? Now, I know there are plenty of liberals out there that think Everyone can be rehabilitated. Most of us know better, but many of us take a position between the extremes of "Hugs Solve Everything" and "The Bad People Place". We're called "thinking adults." It's becoming a very select group, unfortunately. But Please, Jonah, Do continue your, ahem, 'argument'.

So, anyway, if you say "better ten guilty men go free than one innocent be punished" — or some variation of that — all I expect from you is an argument.Why is it better?

It's Better because it encourages people to have the Best Legal System possible. It's setting up an Ideal. No one expects us to meet it, but it is something to Strive for. To make things, you know, Better. Of course, as a Conservative you're mainly interested in keeping things the Same, not necessarily Better, a philosophical difference between us to be sure.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the principle: We should err on the side of protecting the innocent rather than punishing the guilty. Fair enough. But quite often — too often — when people throw out this old adage, they seem to think the principle settles the argument when in fact it only sets the stage for it.

Again, I'm taking Jonah at his word here. All the Liberals he knows are undoubtedly idiots. That's why he knows them. And again, I don't think he understands the principle.

For instance, how come it's better that ten guilty men go free? When we translate the principle to reality, we've got to pick a threshold number. So why not say it's better that 50 guilty men go free? Or, say, two guilty men? Is 10 a special number? Or is it just easy to say? Or haven't you thought about it all? Most often, people haven't thought about it all.

Hellllllooooo, Strawman! I missed you. Again, setting up an ideal. But notice the movement here. "Liberals want ALL Criminals to go FREEEEE! OHH NO! They are Blinded by Ideology..." Oh, wait, I'm getting ahead of myself...

So let me ask you, why not set free two million guilty men? After all, we all know that some number of innocent people are in prison right now. Therefore, if we maximize the principle of erring on the side of the innocent we should let everyone out of jail because we know someone doesn't belong there.

Ok, here we go. "Liberals want ALL Criminals to go FREEEEE! OHH NO! They are Blinded by Ideology..." Unlike, of course, Jonah Goldberg.

The point is we live in a society where we have to make choices about how much error we will permit in any given system, because no system will ever be perfect. It's fine to say that we should err on the side of the innocent. The real work comes when we have to decide how we're going to do that and still keep murderers and rapists in prison.

You know, it just occurred to me. Jonah isn't currently in jail for a crime he didn't commit. Why do I feel that if that were the case this column would be of a far different tone.

CLICHÉ APPEAL
I know this is an old peeve of mine, and I apologize for repeating myself. But you have no idea how many people write me to explain why I am a heartless ogre and fool, using only clichés as their proof. (Speaking of clichés, are cardiacally endowed ogres less mean?) They'll say, "unless you've walked in a man's shoes" or "unless you were there" then "you have no right to judge."

Wow, the last time I saw this many Strawmen I was.. Ok, I've never seen a strawman, but I grew up amongst crop fields. Maybe we just didn't have crows. Yeah, that must be it.

Without recycling another argument, let me just say, this is a nice principle too. Experience is useful, sure. But "unless you were there, you have no right to judge" is still a pretty dumb thing to say 90 percent of the time. I've been neither a slave nor a slave owner; am I therefore deprived of ever offering an opinion on slavery? Can I never criticize a professional football player, president of the United States, policeman, or gay prostitute because I've never been any of those things, either? Should we get rid of juries entirely since we usually don't allow murderers and thieves to decide the fate of murderers and thieves? Anyway, you get my point.

First of all, Jonah, I hate to break it to you, but you're what I like to call an "Indian Killer." It doesn't mean you would kill an Indian now, what I mean, is that if you were around in the 1840's, you would've been killing Indians and/or defending Slavery. I know you think you're a good person, but people like you can only recognize the correct moral position once it's been well established by people who's balls are bigger than your head. So, just continue to collect your check by trashing your opposition and enjoy the 21st Century, you fuck. (It's been a few paragraphs since I called him a fuck.)

I think some people assume clichés are akin to mathematical proofs; some Pythagoras did all of the heavy lifting ages ago, proving that this or that cliché is true and therefore nobody needs to re-check his math. So when someone says "who are we to judge?" everyone in the room nods as if it's in fact true nobody can judge anybody just as everybody nods when your math teacher plugs in the Pythagorean theorem to solve a problem up at the black board.

Again "some people" think a lot of things. And, Yes, you have to push back against them. Like, "some people" think Supply-Side Economics permit ALL tax breaks. "Some People" think Insurance companies should profit off of people afraid of getting sick. You can find "Some People" who think all sorts of stupid shit.

But let me be clear. My problem isn't with clichés themselves. As a conservative, I have to have more than a little respect for the pearls of wisdom contained in phrases like "why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?" There are millennia's worth of Hayekian trial and error built into the trite phrases your mother or grandmother uses. No, my problem is with people who accept clichés without reflecting on what exactly they mean. In a sense, clichés become an ideology all of their own. And since we accept cute phrases like "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence" uncritically, clichés can be far more pernicious than ideology.

I have to say, I don't necesarily disagree with any of this, but he's still a fucking asshole, "As a Conservative, I have more than a little respect for pearls of wisdom". Allow me to retort, Fuck You. Goldberg is a pseudointellectual at best and he is in no position to be talking about 'wisdom', particularly when the underlying, unspoken, postscript on that little statement is "unlike liberals". But I also love that the "pearl" of wisdom Goldberg picks out is the Milk/Cow cliche. Ladies, you like fucking? Are You a Moron? You'll Never Land a Husband! No man has EVER married a woman he's already Fucked! Are you a Moron and a Whore?! Pearls before swine.

FREEDOM DOESN’T WORK THAT WAY
Let me give you the example that made me want to write this column in the first place. Because I'm skeptical about slippery-slope arguments, because I've argued that America is largely immune to becoming a totalitarian state, and because I don't particularly care if Jose Padilla, John Walker Lindh, or Richard Reid ever get a lawyer, a lot of people keep telling me that when one person loses his freedom we're all a little less free.

Wow, what a coincidence, because I think THIS is the paragraph that made me want to write this post in the first place. If you want to understand how far the right-wing has fallen just read the above paragraph, read it and let it soak in, read it in horror and shame and weep. Jonah, when our forefathers set up this country the idea that EVERYONE would have protection under the law was a rather revolutionary idea. I know you and your fuckhole friends don't believe in habeus corpus anymore, but that makes YOU and your friends Evil Idiot Scum, not us. Padilla, Lindh and Reid all deserve their day in court. It affects ALL of us.

This is really some of the worst rhetoric of the Right at the moment. Now, I'll admit, there have been bad decisions in America's judicial history (Bush v. Gore comes to mind), and some of these bad decisions have come from an overtly liberal reading of laws. There are more constraints on cops now, personal freedoms and such, that must make convictions harder. But only in Jonah's World, are ALL the Criminals going free. We have an INSANE incarceration percentage in this country. People are NOT going free, obviously, otherwise they wouldn't be in fucking Jail. But even with this, America's most Popular Solution to Any Problem, Jonah and his ilk are not satisfied. Habeas Corpus, what a bitch. How DARE you request Charges, Evidence and a Lawyer, YOu FUCKING HIPPIES!

You wouldn't believe how many famous people have offered or repeated this observation. Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Eli Wiesel, Captain Jean Luc Picard, as well as countless politicians have said something to the effect of "we are only as free as the least free among us."

It sounds nice, of course. Unfortunately, it's also a crock, factually, logically, and morally.

Wow. Wow. Jonah Goldberg is a dick. I mean, "Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Eli Wiesel".... And CAPTAIN FUCKING PICARD? You are aware that Captain Picard is Fictional, are you not, Jonah? Let's see, three people who have suffered more than most anyone on earth, Heroes to Millions, vs... Fictional Starship Captain. Logically and Morally wrong. Ghandi. Dr. King. Jonah, you are a fuck, I really can't say that enough. This is wearing me out. It's pointless and it's making me tired and angry. I'm not being funny. But I will try to power through.

First, facts and logic: Remember how we all agreed at the beginning of this column that there's undoubtedly an innocent person in prison right now? Well, he's not free. Are you only as free as him?

You know what? The Article goes on, but I think I've made my point. My point is that Jonah Goldberg is a soulless fuck. If you've made it through this far and think Jonah is somehow NOT a soulless fuck, well, my blog may not be for you. I'm good with that, it's your life. I don't have the energy. Here's a link to the original article, if you really must finish it. He basically goes on like this, taking perfectly fine and understandable expressions of the finest aspects of humanity.Taking them, calling them cliches, taking them to their worst extremes and then dismissing them. He's a horrible person. He's a painful person. Watching him use words like 'facts' and 'logic' literally makes me ill. He sells thousands of books. And we all have to live with him and his kind, like it or not.

Anyway..

We are so fucked.

So, here's this today. The link is to Zandar vs. the Stupid, but it's making the rounds. Anyway, scientists now say that the average world temperature will raise by 6.3 degrees by the end of the century, and the current proposals, even the most progressive proposals, are not Nearly enough to stop it.

So, this sort of ties into my whole view of the environmental movement in general. Good luck, godspeed, we're fucked. I don't mean to belittle, and I respect the people out there trying desperately to change the tide. But seriously, we are just fucked. The human race is just not attuned to this sort of thing. If it is a choice between convenience today vs. assurance for tomorrow, we will pick today every time. Of course the human race will not die out, that's ridiculous, we are too resourceful. But decimation is hardly out of the question. In fact, reverse decimation. Decimation is killing off a tenth, I think ninety percent is more the ticket. Good season for undertakers.

Watching the G-20, or whatever, address this is just the darkest of comedy. It's the equivalent of watching a mime stand in front of an Amtrak Express bullet on the rails at a local stop with his hands out. I hope I'm wrong, but I doubt I am. Our only hope is for another Ice Age, which could maybe help us balance out our global warming tendencies with a good Arctic blast and a glacier or two.

Of course, on the opposite side of this are the Conservatives saying that since we're all fucked anyway, why do we have to go through this whole effort. Now, of course, they do not have the courage of their convictions. They don't believe in Global Warming to begin with, so to say that it's no big deal is no big deal to them. It'd be exactly the same as if I were to laugh off alien invasion or, better, the Rapture, since I know it's not going to happen, what do I care. But, in their idiocy, they do have a point, but it's because of people like them that it's futile. Perhaps, maybe, if everyone, not Americans, all fucking 7-billion of us, became a bicycle-riding, recycling, environmentally-conscious hippie overnight we might, MIGHT, have a chance. But as a species, we're still arguing over whether Mohammed or Jesus had better magic powers, so fucking forget that.

Anyway, this is probably the penultimate generation of the human race as undisputed heavy-weight champs of the Planet Earth. So, I say, Enjoy it. Kick back, turn on the AC and have a drink. You deserve it. It's not every species that gets to rule the planet. Plants ruled, lizards ruled, mammals ruled. I say, give the cockroaches a chance.

Christ, you all say apocalypse like it's a bad thing.

Anyway...

Damn Dirty Hippies Pt. 2

Ok, we are almost at the one week anniversary of the already legendary 9-12 Protests. 

So, where are we? Well, nowhere really. Left Blogs are still pretty much insisting that the DC parks service estimate of 70 to 80 thousand is the number of attendees, a lot of Right Blogs claimed right at the beginning that there were 2 million, and I doubt very seriously that they will change that estimate.  Seeing pictures, one thing is clear, there were a shitload of people there. This guy, probably never see his site again, has some pictures. How many are accurate I don't know (there's been some dispute), but he doesn't seem to have too much of an axe to grind.

Anyway, I don't care who was there or how many, really. I've already decided these people are crazy and dangerous and fucking Everywhere, and I really don't care how many of these fuckers tood the weekend off to slither down to the D.C. Mall to protest, they probably All Vote and that's the bigger problem. But I digress. 

What I wanted to talk about is this infinitely infuriating and hilarious post entitled 'Conservative Woodstock'. Yes, this was the Woodstock for the Rightys; you didn't get Jimi, but you did get... Glenn Beck? You win!

First point, Woodstock was NOT a political rally. That shouldn't really need saying, but clearly it does. I know it taken on that identity, but it wasn't, and anyone that still thinks it was I wouldn't take very seriously. Just because the one surviving idiot from the Doors is still going around bleeting about how music 'changed things' doesn't make it fucking true. No right-winger ever quotes the times Bob Dylan has claimed songs don't change shit, and he should know a thing or two on the subject. 

It's very telling though that these idiots would compare this to Woodstock, because Woodstock, a FUCKING MUSIC CONCERT (30+ Years ago!) is their touchstone for all things leftist. How about comparing it at least to the Iraq War demonstrations or the Obama Inauguration? (Actually, a few of them, bravely, were trying to do that. But I think they're inflating numbers a bit.) (Sorry, I usually try to do links, but I'm writing this shit a week late, and I don't have the energy to search things up.)

Anyway, this is my favorite bit:

There were notable differences though, in the behavior of these attendees. Although the legend of Woodstock is that there was a friendly atmosphere of camaraderie, the truth is that most people were there for the drugs, sex and rock and roll. Today in D.C. there was a true kinship amongst these people based on shared values and intellectual understanding of what America is and how its future is imperiled by big radical government.

No one was having sex in the Reflecting Pool let alone the mud, and I saw no one projectile vomiting on the steps of the Capitol. There were no warnings to avoid the bad acid which would send you on a trip to the hospital. Not just a different era, but a different level of civilized behavior and thought. Oh, and by the way, these people didn’t leave tons of garbage behind when they left. Actually they left no trash behind at all.

Yes, most people were at Woodstock for the Sex, Drugs and Rock and Roll, because it was a FUCKING ROCK CONCERT! Those are the sort of people that go to a three day Rock Festival. I went to Burning Man and there were a lot of people there for the Sex and Drugs (I know I was). But guess what? A ShitLoad of people voted for Obama that wouldn't come within MILES of Burning Man (Literally, it was quite out of the way.) Yes, I'm sure there was a lot of Lefty Political Ranting at Woodstock, because at the time people that went to that sort of thing were probably aware of a little war I like to call Viet-fucking-nam. 

And Further, since when are Sex, Drugs and Rock-n-Roll NOT Shared Values? Some of us take those Very Seriously. (You try to take away my Alcohol (they tried it once, remember) and you just watch me go Charlton Heston on your Government Asses.) And, again, you get this Conservative Twat Babble "we're civilized because we're clean, we don't have sex and we don't need Drugs to get High on life!"

These people are deranged First Graders. Forgive me, but if I walked amongst you, I would be amazed if I could find ONE of You that would stand up against Torture, Extraordinary Rendition and the habeas corpus, so forgive me if I don't let you take the Moral High Ground on this one, Kay? Kay.

By the end of the Nixon era, a Majority of this country was completely fed up with Vietnam, but the ONLY people that matter to these Idiots are the Dirty Hippies with their Dirty Sex and Dirty Drugs. STILL. I would bet anyone 1000 dollars that you couldn't find 1 person in 100 at the fucking Tea Party Rally that would either a) disagree with those two paragraphs, or b) even question them. 

Everyone that disagrees with a teabagger is a dirty hippy. Still. Vietnam has fucked up this country permanent until every baby boomer that remembers it is under ground. Period. 

Anyway...

Damn Dirty Hippies, Pt. 1

So, the 9-12 Rally really brought out true beliefs of the Wingnuts, not that they were that far below the surface to begin with. Here's this from Gateway Pundit. Basically it's Dirty Hippies vs. Krinkly Klean Konservatives... wait, Oh, that was so not fair of me.

So, the post shows a picture of the Washington Mall after the 9-12 protest, and I have to say, they were very clean people, which is a good thing. And then he (she?) runs several pictures of DC after the Obama rally and the place is pretty much trashed. Of course, there actually WERE a Million Plus people at Obama's Inauguration, not the Pretend Million at the 9-12 Protest. Now, I don't want to belittle the 9-12 Protest, but Gateway's bringing it up. They had a good turn out, crazy people unite! I'm a liberal, protest is American, even if you don't really have a coherent agenda... or worldview. But, you know, there really WERE a Million+ people at the Obama rally, the logistics are a bit different. Anyway, here's Nate Silver's take on the Disappearing 1.5 or so million people.

Seriously though, my gentle readers, I implore you, take a quick breeze through the comments. Oh, hell, let me play you some of my favorites:

That pretty much sums up the differences. Our mothers made us clean up after ourselves and taught us to treat others as we would have them treat us. Something about a "golden rule"...

FedUp

Hey! I know the 'golden rule', that's why I've never locked up anyone indefinitely without trial and/or hooked a car battery to anyone's testicles. Golden Rule, Baby!

It's a matter of maturity. Liberalism is a form of delayed adolescence.

Karen

Heh. Can't really argue with this one. Speaking for myself, of course.

Great comparison. I bet their brains are as dirty and filthy too. Lol
Winston

I certainly hope so! ROTFLMFAO! 

The mess pretty much sums up the Obama Presidency.
justpassingthrough 

Or, you could view it as the mess left at the tail-end of the Bush Presidency. 

Seriously, check it out. I love these people. Absolutely hilarious.

Anyway...

9-12, day late and a brain short.

So, I don't know too much about Glenn Beck's 9-12 project except that he cries like a bitch when he brings it up. However, what I do know is this, they are meeting tomorrow, and estimates range from Democrats hoping to inflate the outcome (2 million) to Republicans hoping to deflate it (20 thousand). Personally, I kind of agree with Zandar, bring these idiots on. Give the country a full fledged honest view of the hatred and insanity. Hopefully they reject it, if they don't, well, I'm still fine with moving to Vancouver. 

But that's such a Librul response, isn't it? I mean, I sort of admire these wackos. For 8 years Liberal Americans suffered under the insufferable Chimp and at best threatened to leave the country and at worst just took it like a bitch and stayed. After merely 8 months of relatively uneventful rule Conservatives are ready for Revolution. At the very least you have to admire their chutzpah. 

Speaking of Chutzpah, here is a clip of the Glennster playing the Kennedy death for laughs and invoking Paul Wellstone (if you can stand to watch it). 

So, basically here's the summary. Shallow, soulless radio/TV personality can exploit the deaths of 3000 people that affected ALL Americans (no matter how much Conservatives want to pretend Liberals don't care), but apparently Liberals cannot be inspired by the death of a Congressman that died very young who inspired thousands and a Senator who was the Political Touchstone for HealthCare for  over 40 years which is on the brink of passing............ Gotcha. Glenn, you are a colossal Fuck. Hope you don't mind me saying. The next time you go to confession I hope the priest pisses in your face. 

But wait, I've digressed. Anyway, I've gone to the 9-12 page. NO MENTION of what these 9 Principles and 12 Values are. Seriously, that's what this is based on, why are they so hard to find on the fucking Website. If someone else can find them, please leave a comment on this post. I would love to know. I looked. Honestly. But, first, it's fucking stupid. There aren't 12 Values and 9 Principles. What are you, the employee supervisor for Wal*Mart? Circuit City? 

To quantify something like Values and Principles is the hallmark of an unserious person. OR an opportunistic person looking to take advantage of the rubes, but that couldn't possibly be you, could it, Glenn? You want to make a list of the 100 greatest guitarists of all time, fine. You want to make a list of the 9 greatest Principles, go fuck yourself. In fact, that sounds fine. Glenn, go fuck yourself. 

Hope you have a good turnout tomorrow. You fucking fuck.

Anyway...

Out of the closet, spies!

Today Bill O'Reilly had his usual Friday column in the NY Post, which I would link to, but the Post website fucking blows, always has, and I'm becoming convinced, always will. Anyway, he covered this on his show, and here's a clip. Apparently there is an organization called The John Adams Project (not nearly as popular as Alan Parsons') which is going around trying to snap pictures of CIA officials who tortured. 

Now, I'm genuinely conflicted about this. Granted, anyone who tortured is an amoral monster. I'm sorry, but you are. I couldn't torture somebody no matter what (excluding Glenn Beck). And I do believe these people that did this torturing should be brought before a court of law. But, showing photos of potential torturers to potential terrorists just seems like a bad fucking plan. I'm sure it's more carefully thought out than Bill'O presents it, but still, seems a bit careless.

However, I also understand the frustration of people on the forefront of this war. The Government will not co-operate, it will never co-operate, they need the CIA too much; they know all the good secrets. But imagine you are a lawyer trying to find the truth of this torture debacle.  Unlike soulless douchebags like O'Reilly you believe passionately that Torture is wrong. How do you get information for your clients? Clients which presumably are innocent until proven guilty in accordance to our values and beliefs, correct?

But I'm getting sidetracked on an issue that can not be resolved (particularly on this blog, which I have on good authority is managed by a drunken asshole). The main thing here is that in his column, Bill O. complains that there is not the same amount of outrage with the John Adams Project as there was in the Valerie Plame case. Well, to be blunt, no fucking shit, Bill.

Valerie was outed because the Bush Administration was trying to discredit someone who disagreed with them. They were exuding EXTREME political pressure (i.e. ruining careers of government employess) to get a result they wanted, to get the WAR they wanted. A few zealous Americans running around trying to photo a few other Zealous (how else could you torture) Americans is hardly the Government. 

Further more, despite what I am sure is Bill'O and the Gang's fervent desire to link Obama to this mess, apparently the Government IS looking into this, according to Media Matters, which I'm sure Bill'O does not consider a legitimate source. 

The point is, once again, Bill completely misses the point. The outrage was over the Government exercising Extreme Pressure to get a bogus result they wanted. Many on the left, I'm sure, are not big fans of the CIA, but Many of us recognize their importance and do not want them killed. However, my compassion for the difficulties of their job does not necessarily extend to sociopaths willing to torture. Many serious people were saying then, and are still saying now, that torture does not work. The FBI, I believe, wanted no part of the torture, which partly led to the CIA handling this shit to begin with. 

Basically for a few years this country was led by a bunch of idiots who took '24' a Little Too Seriously, and I fear Bill'O is one of them. Should we be showing pictures of agents to terrorist suspects, probably not. Should we be outing CIA agents because they disagree with the Government rational for a war that might potentially... No, wait, DID kill thousands of people; NO. 

Anyway...

Why I fucking swear

Glenn Greenwald has a good post today about the whole Joe 'You Lie' Wilson episode. It is part of a larger meditation about a) who is considered 'serious' by the establishment (one of Glenn's popular themes for those unfamiliar), b) why people who swear are considered 'unserious' and reactionary, and c) why people who speak politely can advocate torture, extraordinary rendition and preemptive war and still get on CNN rather than being run out of town on a rail. 

Apparently the whole thing boils down to how people view being polite. It is not polite to swear, but it's fine to agree that hooking up a man's balls to a car battery is a reasonable course of action, so long as you refer to said 'balls' as 'testicles'. 

This is, of course, fucking insane. I agree that one should not swear all the time. Job interviews before it's explicitly made clear it's appropriate, for example. I don't think children should swear around their parents, not necessarily out of respect, but it's great training. You should have people in your life you don't swear around. I don't really have that right now, and haven't for about a decade, so when I DO get in situations where I should hold my tongue it takes a lot more effort.

But I digress. My point is... Read Glenn's post(and also the link to the post Glenn calls one of the greatest ever, it's a goody), and also this one by Zandar. We live in a world where people like Glenn Beck can say the most hateful ridiculous things possible, but somehow are not ostracized from the community. We live in a world where a Vast number of pundits talk about Torture like it's an intellectual exercise. It's fucking ridiculous, but if you say it's fucking ridiculous, well, you're not serious. Now, maybe we should hold our tongues. But sometimes only a good fuck will do. You know? It amazes me that even after all this time some people don't realize that societies' clowns are often its most serious people. Richard Pryor and Bill Hicks both swore like surprised and injured sailors and, I assure you, they were both dead fucking serious.

Anyway...

A Reasonable Man

So, Tim Pawlenty, Republican Governor of Minnesota, has received a bit of attention today. Here's Steve Benen's take. Apparently he was asked about 'Death Panels' a grand total of four times today by a VERY patient reporter. Eventually he walked back his comments a bit, but he started out very much in favor of the Death Panels. You know, it's that secret plan of Obama's to turn the U.S. into some kind of real-life working model of Logan's Run. 

Now, I am personally against the Death Panels, have been since the beginning, despite all the tireless efforts of the 'Death Panel' accusers to try and prove how much the planet would improve if they were put in front of said panels and received a Nay vote. 

However, my personal opinions aside, here is the main point. Pawlenty is considered a Reasonable Conservative and even he has to pander to this shit. If you read his post, Steve Benen says he almost feels sorry for Pawlenty having to speak things he almost certainly thinks are untrue just so he doesn't have to annoy the morons who make up his base. 

Personally, I don't know how to feel. I certainly don't feel sorry, though. Obviously all politicians lie, you have to. And the bigger the office the more you have to lie, but it doesn't really invoke my sympathies. It's the nature of the job, and it's one thing to tell a stretcher, another thing to change your mind, and quite another to just fucking lie outright. But the amount of shit you have to swallow to appease the Republican base these days really is astounding. Basically you can't agree with Obama in any way, shape or form or you're a traitor. That's a tough position to be in, especially because Obama is often fairly reasonable. 

Well, it's a rough life if you want to be President, and Pawlenty might just be enough of a lying, dithering fuck to make it. Good luck to you, sir.

Anyway...

Alternate Realities

There was something else that struck me in Mr. Taranto's post (see my previous). Of course, he states it in the most douche-baggy way possible. (Again, see my previous post where I prove, conclusively, that Mr. Taranto is, for the time being, a douche-bag.) He writes:

The Post is right to say the debate is "irresolvable." History does not allow for controlled experiments, so there is no way of knowing if innocent Americans would in fact have been killed in terrorist attacks had the CIA treated KSM with TLC, as now seems to be U.S. policy under the Obama administration.

 Ok, let's deal with a couple points here. First, KSM, the 9-11 mastermind, is a douche-bag on a level that Mr. Taranto can only dream and, I'm thinking, perhaps cannot comprehend. KSM is a fuck, a delusional fuck, a religious shitbag that deserves any and everything he has coming to him. And somehow, we made this guy somewhat sympathetic. Why? Because we waterboarded him to within an inch of his life... Almost 200 Times. We damn near killed this fucker, and had we done that what would we have done without all the information he allegedly started spouting after the 186th trip to the waterboard?

I want to ramble on about the douche-baggy phrase 'kids-gloves' (again, OBAMA WILL KILL US ALL), but I'll digress. Anyway, he is right to say, to a certain degree, that this is an insolveable debate, using his VERY narrow definition. What he is asking is did the policies of Bush/Cheney prevent an attack on Actual US soil. After all, the only human lives Republicans give a shit about seem to be American lives, even though we're all humans. This is a distinction I try not to make, and yet I somehow remain proud of my country and happy that I live here. But, we don't know. Would the Gore administration have prevented 9-11 altogether? Would Bush/Cheney have been able to prevent any further terrorist attacks without the harsh techniques? We actually don't know. (Though I have theories.)

But, in another context I've wished we had this ability. Not just for Terror subjects, but just in general. Lately a lot of idiot Republicans (Cantor, Jindal, McConnell, I'm looking at you) have been publicly criticizing the stimulus plan, but going around their respective states, praising and taking credit for jobs created by stimulus funds, but not mentioning the Stimulus. Some people might find this hypocritical. Not me; I find it fucking, psychotically hypocritical.

But, I do wish we received feeds from FOX, MSNBC, and CNN from a parallel dimension. I wish they were on Cable channels 501-503.  I wish the feed was from a dimension in which John McCain won the election. I wish this feed was from a dimension where he followed through on his campaign promises. I wish it was from the dimension where the Republicans followed through on their insane idea of a 5 year federal government spending freeze. I'd love to see that dimension where Republicans, in the shape the party is in now, had control for another Four years after the Bush Debacle. I'd feel sorry for those other dimensional sons-of-bitches, but I'd love to have a concrete frame of reference.

I think, had we these channels, it would shoot Obama's approval rating into the 80s. Unfortunately, we don't. So preach on Mr. Taranto, we're a captive audience, I guess.

Anyway...

Another Dick for President

So, I have to say, I started this modest blog and I am now proud to say that I have a following at the Wall Street Journal! Well, at least, I'm assuming I do, as what else would explain someone at the WSJ publishing an Editorial that A) so responded to my post, and, b) so PISSED ME OFF.

Anyway, click at your own risk. After writing my last post about what a dick Dick was, this was literally the first thing I read about at Political Animal the next morning. It was a bad start to the morning.. 

For context, see my last post about how DICK Cheney has not kept us safe. However, apparently there is nothing that will dissuade his supporters from wishing he was President. Yes, the man that brought us the most Catastrophic Vice Presidency In History still has people wanting him to be Top, not Penultimate, Banana.

Anyway, James Taranto had a post with the WSJ (which I'm assuming he was paid for... PISSED) about how Dick would make a great president, IF they could convince him to run (Here's Hoping!), because again and fucking always "He Kept Us Safe." Again, this is not true for a number of reasons, but the most prominent is NINE-FUCKING-ELEVEN! How does the Bush Administration NOT get the rap for that?! We fuck around in the Middle East ALL the time! We had a report BIN LADEN DETERMINED TO ATTACK! There are Very Vengeful Assholes over there! Now, I said before, and I stand by it, you can't lay 9-11 Entirely at Bush/Cheney's feet, BUT, and it's a But as big as a Sir-Mix-a-Lot DayDream, you can lay a ShitLoad of it at their feet, and, more importantly, you can lay the resulting odious foreign and domestic policy decisions on them. And still, this dimwit wants Cheney to run. 

Mr. Taranto goes on to say that if there is "HEAVEN FORBID" another attack "Obama will have failed in his most basic of presidential duties." Now, I'm not saying that Mr. Taranto is a douche-bag. I'm sure he's loved by... someone. Mother, something... body, I meant somebody.  Anyway, regardless of his douche-bag status ONLY a Douche-Bag would say that. First, I suspect one of the main reasons we have NOT been attacked again (domestically, discounting that Anthrax kerfuffle) is because provoking a Mid-East Holy War was very much on Bin Laden's wish list of reactions. I love how people say Cheney kept us safe. Do soldiers not count as US? I think plenty of US have been taken out. Secondly, and this really is the main point, by that standard... Didn't Bush FAIL in his BASIC PRESIDENTIAL Fucking DUTIES on NINE-FUCKING-ELEVEN? Jesus. 

Second, the main point of all this douche-baggery is just setting up Obama for the fall. The reason why I don't blame Bush and Cheney entirely for the terror attack is because the world is a big and complex place and it's hard to stop every small group of nuts out there. Sure it could be Bin Laden again. Or it could be some psycho in Kansas with a free weekend and 500 gallons of gasoline burning a hole in his pocket. It is much easier to destroy than create. So, basically, Mr. Taranto is placing preemptive blame on Obama for ANY attack that occurs on his 'watch'. Because, suddenly, terror attacks count as the fault of the Current Administration. Funny how that works. Now, I'm not saying if there is an attack that Obama should not be scrutinized. However, if it is determined that the attack wasn't out of a result of Gross Negligence and Hubris (cough, Bush, cough, CHENEY) then I'm thinking we can give him a pass. Not that the douche-bags ever will.

So, Mr. Taranto, I'm afraid you're a douche-bag until you can say something to prove otherwise. Good luck to you, all my best.  Also, if you didn't read Steve Benen's post about all this (linked above), please do, he's good.

Anyway...

Placing blame.

So, Cheney was on Fox News this weekend being interviewed by, to borrow a phrase from Rush, Republican butt-boy Chris Wallace. Cheney was being Cheney, so there's no real reason to go into his interview in depth. He's upset about CIA investigations, he kept America safe, Torture is Awesome, the Rule of Law is so passe, blah, blah.

I'd like to focus for a moment about the Bush/Cheney 'kept us safe' claim. This post from Crooks and Liars touches on this a little (and has the interview, if you can stand it). What has always amazed me is that Cheney continually claims credit for keeping us safe except, well, I'm fairly certain 9-11 happened on his watch. I don't know why they get a pass on this. I really do not know, except that I do. This country still (STILL!) has a slavish devotion to the idea that Republicans are Responsible Adults, and Democrats are Dirty Hippies. 

It is annoying. There are no shortage of people who blame Clinton for the 9-11 attacks. Just Google "Clinton Responsible 9-11" and click to your heart's delight. Here's a good one.  Still, it amazes me that Cheney/Bush get a pass for 9-11.  Yes, we kept you safe, except for that one little, tiny time we didn't, but that was some other guy's fault. It was the Fall!  The good teevee was coming on after the long summer! It's not out faaaaaaaaaaaauuuult!

Let me take a stab at an analogy. Say Cheney is baby-sitting for you. He does this every day for eight years. Somewhere around 9 months into his baby-sitting term he leaves the baby outside the grocery and a dog mauls the baby and takes off an arm or two. Then nothing happens to the baby again for 7.25 more years. Did he keep the baby safe? Is that any comfort to this 2nd grader who now has to hold his crayons in his mouth? Then to top it off, he loudly proclaims that a) he did not harm the baby, b) left the baby better than he found it, and c) it doesn't matter anyway because the whole event was really the previous baby-sitter's fault because he would occasionally go to the same grocery store.

Look, I don't blame 9-11 (entirely) on Bush/Cheney, though their hubris certain didn't help anything. I won't say 'no one', but it was not widely thought that anything on that scale could happen at the time. I am in no way a truther, and I've always given them a bit of a pass for the original attack. But Pride is one of the deadly sins, and America has always had it in spades. And Cheney's behavior, along with the behavior of his minions, has since been inexcusable. It's amazing to me that this man can still run around the country crying 'Terrorist Lover' to anyone who happens to think that Maybe Torture is Wrong. He is a discredited sad old man and the world would be a better place if he would finish his life in quiet retirement. But of course, he does have his fans, and always will.

If Cheney was a Democrat, well, first, he would be a completely different person, but more importantly, FOX, Rush and the dittoheads would actually consider him at fault for the attack that happened on HIS watch. Instead, he gets to mouth off on FOX News 8 years later about how he kept us all Safe. Except for that one time. I think this lone citizen said it best.

Anyway...

Things that are not helping.

Let me take a moment to castigate (castrate?) MSNBC. Apparently they, while charging the people that are bringing guns to these town hall meetings with being insane racists, cropped the head off a photo of one of these individuals. Unfortunately, it appears they did not crop the head off this individual to protect his identity. No, he was a black dude. Some crazy brought a fucking gun to a Town Hall, AND he just happened to be black.  Predictably, the right wing went nuts. Also, predictably, their nutzary was twofold. First, obviously, since ONE black guy brings a gun to a town hall, none of the other white guys could POSSIBLY be RACIST. No, they are good Americans who are just exercising their rights. 

But, secondly, and more importantly, the Left Press does NOT get to lie. Often, the Right treats the mere expression of an opinion with a Liberal bent as Lying, which is why it is especially important that Liberals fact check their shit before presenting anything. (Just ask Dan Rather, not that I consider him a lefty, but he certainly said something naughty about the Chimp.) Now, I personally do not have to worry about this as I pass only opinion and very little fact. But mainstream press outlets do have to worry about it. And if MSNBC wants to fashion itself as a Liberal response to Fox, (which incidentally will be slow going as long as Big Joe is on every fucking morning) they are going to have to make sure this shit doesn't happen. So, if a Nut shows up at a town hall meeting with a gun and he's black don't just try to push the convenient 'Racist' theme, no matter how true or deserved; push the Nuts theme. Nuts come in all sizes, shapes and colors. It's a great country.

Anyway...

Apocalypse wow...

I've longed held faith that the human race has the power to destroy itself. In fact, I believe it's likely. Actually, I don't think we could destroy the entirety of the race. We are too smart and resourceful a species. Undoubtedly a few would survive, perhaps in caves deep underground, with a well placed clean water spring and heated from the core of the earth. Survivors will dine on rats and bats while waiting for the nuclear night to die down. At any rate, the madness of human population explosion is bound to end eventually, one way or another, and the survivors will probably end up living more like the American Indians, or other 'indigenous' peoples from across the globe, who lived for thousands of years before European ideas of advancement and greed became the norm for 'progress'.  I mean, I like the electric guitar as much as the next head-banger, but one has to wonder, is it worth it? I don't know.

Anyway, Slate did this awesome thing recently where they came up will 120 or so ways America might meet its grizzly end. Granted, these scenarios focus just on the end of American dominance and not a full fledged world-wide Apocalypse, but hey, it's something. Check it out.

Two points of view

So, about a week ago Glenn Beck called Obama "a racist" and said he had "a deep seated hatred of white people." Now, I will be the first to admit that I have a deep seated hatred of Glenn Beck. Why? Because he says patently stupid and inflammatory, and generally unhelpful, things in front of a national audience. After he said this incredibly Stupid Thing he walked it back 30 SECONDS later. He walked it back, 30 SECONDS later on FOX. He was amongst friends is what I'm saying. That's how stupid what he said was.

So, as a result, ColorOfChange started e-mailing advertisers to alert them to Glenn Beck's unsubstantiated and completely nuts comments and encourage said advertisers to not support this sort of program. Quite a few advertisers have pulled out, including Geico and Men's Wearhouse. 

Redstate.com objects to all of this. If Glenn Beck goes, the Liberal Nation will be empowered and Conservatives will be on the chopping block! After all, Glenn Beck is just the sort of person you want representing the Conservative point of view. And, of course, they do so in the most reasonable way possible, "Obama Brownshirts Try to Silence Glenn Beck." So, if I am understanding correctly, anyone who supports reasonable political discourse in this country (and obviously I do not personally hold myself to the 'reasonable' standard, but I'm not on TV), is a Nazi and anyone who thinks Glenn Beck is a fucking moron is on Obama's personal payroll. Glad I understand RedState's position.

Anyway...

Nothing for Nothing

So, the living will consultation provision is out of the health care bill. Good job, Wingnuts! Way to make things worse! Again! You must all be so fucking proud! You can read about this news pretty much anywhere, but for the full flavor of paranoia with just a soupcon of psychosis you have to check out the comments at Michelle Malkin. 

Anyway, I don't know WHY Democrats do this shit. To recap, a perfectly reasonable provision is added to a bill, Living Wills are a good thing, and as with most good things, providing funds and encouragement (though I'm not sure encouragement was included in the Bill) to do good things is not bad. So, good provision added to the bill. Then Prominent Republicans, I'm looking at YOU, Sarah, make up ridiculous lies about the provision, I believe the phrase "Death Panels" was thrown around. The Sheep bought it and went to town halls to throw Hissy Fits, Fox News reports it as gospel, and... Surprise, Surprise, the Democrats take out the good provision in order to... WHAT?! 

Seriously, What!? They are not going to get ONE vote, nobody who is against heathcare believes the Dems are acting in good faith anyway, so WHAT exactly do they hope to accomplish by caving?

One thing I grudgingly admire about Republicans is they will fight to the death for what they believe even when what they believe is proven tragically and factually wrong. I mean, this is also why I can't stand Republicans, but a bit more of that sort of spine from the Dems would work wonders. But, no, they want Chuck Grassley to think we're all friends. Fucking idiots. So now, once again, the HealthCare bill is weakened for No Reason Whatsoever. Good job, fucknuts.

Anyway...

Fox News, Protectors of Free Speech

So, Steve Benen posted a video today, and said little except to lament the state of political discourse in our union. And like an idiot I watched it.  Now, the video is 7 minutes of unedited Fox madness and I can really not tolerate much more than 30 seconds at a time, but it was interesting to watch the whole thing.

Anyway, the video is of Fox 'Correspondent' Megyn Kelly going after Bill Burton from the White House. Now, sadly, this video was posted as 'Bill ignores Kelly's questions", all conspiratorial like, which is pretty much how Megyn tried to frame the 'conversation'. What I saw was a government official trying to have an honest conversation with the press and he couldn't Quite believe the level of stupidity he was dealing with. But hey, I'm one of those idiot Libruls.

So, the first 3 minutes of the video was dedicated to Megyn asking if the White House was going to Delete the e-mails after they had responded to them. Now, I barely made it past this, because it is blisteringly stupid. There is a records act which Prohibits the deleting of White House e-mail, you may recall the Bush Administration had a little trouble with this policy. Then, after Bill struggles to understand why she's asking if he is doing something either A) unnecessary, or B) illegal, Megyn switches gears and states that she does Indeed know about that retention act, and that this is a really a free speech issue.

My suspicion is that she was trying to trap Bill, but let's not speculate and assume she's working in good faith (which she wasn't or she would've brought up the act right away, rather than wallowing in innuendo for 4 fucking minutes, but...).  She now states that people might be worried about sending an E-mail to a neighbor, because that e-mail might be forwarded to the White House.  Keep in mind, the people she is likely referring to now feel comfortable showing up to town halls with "Death to Obama" signs. Ok, one guy did this, but I've yet to see any serious outcry from the Right.

Though, I have to say, I understand this fear; not necessarily legitimate, but I understand. Thinking back, I wouldn't have wanted people forwarding my e-mails anywhere where they could be read by Karl Fucking Rove (even though I'm sure my e-mails are all in a database somewhere already, along with yours), so it's fair that a person might not want shit forwarded to David Axelrod.  However this concern would carry FAR more weight if Megyn or her 'news' network gave a good goddamn about privacy during the Bush administration. For the last eight years Bush has been mining telecommunications and e-mail completely indiscriminately in the name of warring terror. This is well documented, Congress passed a retroactive law to protect Telecom agencies from any punishments for cooperating with Bush spying demands. (Barack signed off on that, I might add, after he PROMISED NOT TO. Kind of a big deal to some of us.) So, this seems more like a concern for Fox ONLY when Democrats are in power. Principles are principles, or so I've been told, at least for some of us. 

Despite the hypocrisy of Fox, they do have a point. I would call this a minor error on the part of the White House.  But they do finally have a website set up now to handle all the Healthcare bullshit that's been flying around out there, mostly perpetrated by people like Megyn, I hope they keep it up. And maybe we won't have to send them e-mails, though really, thanks to Bush, the Executive Branch (i.e. Obama) already has access to ALL your shit. To sum up, spying is legal, privacy is passe, and Fox, despite current protestations, helped it happen. 

Anyway...

HealthCare Crisis. Solved!

I've been following the healthcare debate fairly closely for a while now.  I'm fairly sure HealthCare will get passed, and I'm fairly sure it will be better than what we have now. And I'm fairly sure it will be improved over time. And, should all this come to pass, I am damn fucking sure that in 30 years you will have small government, conservative idiots screaming, "Tell the Government to Keep their Hands off my ObamaCare!"

I was trying to find this one, rather heartbreaking, video of a woman who's Grandmother and sister are both being kept alive by Medicare, but she's still at a Townhall terrified of 'Government Intervention." Anyway, her fears are not uncommon and if you look, it is not difficult to find people who express the sentiment, "Tell the government to keep their hands off my MediCare!" Such people are deeply confused. Clearly. However, they do provide a solution to solving the Healthcare debate. 

I think that President Obama should call for a six month spending freeze on Medicare and Medicaid. Sure, people will die. Probably quite a few people. But it's ok, because the only thing keeping those people alive is the evil federal government. And the best part of this plan is it will have broad support from the Republicans, because they hate wasteful spending on things like the health and well-being of the citizenry.

Then, after six months of seeing their Grandparents not getting the federal assistance they need to live, perhaps all these idiots screaming at these town halls will be ready for a serious discussion on healthcare. The ones still alive that is.

Come on, Obama. You've proved you're willing to kill people in Afghanistan for the greater good. Now you just have to be willing to kill them here. Good luck.

Anyway...

All the Little Bubbles

I've been thinking a lot about the various crazinesses that have been going on since Obama was elected President.  And there have definitely been people who are showing up at these healthcare town halls that are completely unhinged. They are actually, genuinely, angry and scared that their side isn't in power anymore. And I understand that, I was angry and scared when MY side wasn't in power. (I don't think it's a equal comparison exactly, but I'll let it go. For now.). 

Anyway, my point is this. 53% of the population voted for this man. I realize you get the motivated crazies to come out to these things, but honestly, don't these people know ANY liberals? I mean, I know Conservatives. I have Conservative friends and relatives, and we talk politics (granted, it's about the only thing I can talk about at length) and sometimes things get heated, but I don't hate them afterward or ever. I just don't know what kind of life you have to have where you are clearly not getting ANY input from the other side to tell you that you are off your nut.  (Also, I don't like using the word 'side' exactly, but for purposes of this post it will do.)

I've been doing this thing where I randomly surf blogspot for items of interest. I stumbled across this nutjob the other day, rightwing.blogspot.com . The guy has stopped blogging, but he had this to say as the final paragraph of his final post (below the picture of him with the fish), "Cindy Sheehan, and those like her, don't deserve the freedom they currently enjoy. They deserve a bullet in their heads."

Jesus. Now I don't think this guy is dangerous, but I have to say, What The Fuck? Seriously. I get angry at Conservatives, particularly media figures like Rush, but I don't think he should be SHOT. Fuck, man. That's heavy.  

My point is, I am a raging liberal, and I write this blog to be funny, to practice writing, and so my head doesn't explode. And I will rag on 'Republicans' a lot, but the thing is, I don't HATE them. (I mean the general populace, not people like Rush who I actually do hate, but still do not wish to Shoot him, just wish he would retire and/or suffer chronic laryngitis.) Unlike a lot of people out there, I don't need an enemy to justify my existence, I really just need my existence. 

Anyway...

Plug Life

So, this is the start of my new blog. I had an old blog, but I wanted a new name so here we are. So, I thought, what better way to start my new blog than to give some props to other people I enjoy reading. 

The Faster Times - A new on-line magazine. I will admit my main interest is because my girlfriend writes the Death Blog. She's awesome, Death is awesome (as a topic of discussion) and she writes insightful things on the topic; do click. I will also say the site bears merit beyond the contributions of people I'm sleeping with.

Political Animal - I've been reading Steven Benen for at least a year and probably more now. He's probably the most centered, reasonable person I read. He posts like a machine and he's insightful. Great general info site.

Salty Salutes - This is my friend, Dave. He writes about music. He has great taste and takes the time to find obscure videos on youtube. You can benefit from his efforts by clicking the link. You'll probably like his blog better than mine. It's more useful, that's for certain.

Digby's Blog - Digby is an old-school blogger. She's great, and she has assistance from certified militants Tristero and DDay to keep things edgy.

Crooks and Liars - How can you not love that? And they have videos! The kids love videos.

Memeorandum - Not really a blog, but a great snapshot of what's being discussed by the blogosphere on any given day. Also a great source to see what right blogs are saying about a particular topic. Without, you know, adding them to your favorites.

The Daily Howler - I do occasionally disagree with this guy, but he does go after the Liberal establishment, particularly Keith Olbermann and Rachael Maddow, and let's face it, they deserve it. He can be slightly repetitive, so far as topics go, but an insightful, annoyed liberal worth reading.

Instaputz - Three smart-alecks who do their main writing for other blogs. The only people I know who have a 'mainstream' blog who swear almost as much as I do.

I read others, but that's a good sampler.

Anyway...