Archive for November, 2008

Grand Comedy

Sunday, November 30th, 2008

– posted by thehim

The “Obama was born in Kenya” conspiracy theory is on the verge of reaching “9/11 Truth” levels of widespread lunacy.

FactCheck.org has a good rundown and debunking here.

After reading about Matt Taibbi’s encounters with 9/11 Truth whackos in his recent book, I’m a little reluctant to dig much deeper into how people can actually believe this, but I just can’t avoid it. Stupidity at this level is just fascinating to me, and there are things that still remain unclear.

They’ve been claiming that the Certificate of Live Birth isn’t really proof that he was born in Hawaii, even though it provides a time of birth and the island of birth. Apparently, there’s a real birth certificate that proves that he was born in Kenya. Ok, got it.

The Certificate of Birth says that he was born at 7:24PM on August 4, 1961. It says that he was born in Oahu. Now, do they believe that his mother gave birth to him on August 4, 1961 in Kenya, travelled half-way across the globe to Hawaii, got a falsified Hawaiian Certificate of Live Birth, and still managed to get an announcement of his birth placed in the Honolulu Advertiser on August 13? Or, do they believe that his mother gave birth to him in Kenya before August 4, travelled half-way across the globe to Hawaii, tricked Hawaiian officials into giving him a Certificate of Live Birth for a time and place he wasn’t actually born, and then kept up the ruse for his entire life by having him celebrate an incorrect birthday, all because he might run for President one day?

Either way, this is entertaining.

More Depressing Shit

Saturday, November 29th, 2008

– posted by thehim

Since my last post was on such a non-funny topic, I figure I may as well stick to things I really shouldn’t be trying to find humor in. Either that, or I’m just in a demented fucking mood this holiday weekend. Probably the latter.

Jonathan Gardner has some thoughts on the Mumbai attacks

Watching the news reports of the massacre in Mumbai, India, by hostile muslims I have a few thoughts come into my mind.

We’ve warned him about doing that.

First, I believe, strongly, in freedom of religion.

He just believes more strongly in imposing his religion on others.

However, when that religion teaches you to take up arms and kill the innocent in violation of the laws of the land, I must confess I don’t see why we should give that religion any freedom to be practiced.

Freedom of Religion without collective punishment is like…well, it’s like Freedom of Religion.

The fundamental question is this: Shall we allow people to use their God-given rights to go about murdering the innocent?

No, and we shouldn’t. And we don’t. And we never would in a million years. Is there a point here?

Shall we allow them free speech, free association, freedom of religion, the right to bear arms, etc… if their intention is to kill people?

Well, no. But what’s worse is saying that you can divine one’s intentions simply by looking at their religion.

The answer is obvious: NO.

No shit, Sherlock.

Instead, we will stand up and fight them wherever they are.

Well, wherever President Bush tells them “they” are.

Once you intend to kill me or my neighbors, it is my duty to see to it that you are prevented from doing such harm, even if it means killing you.

And possibly thousands of other innocent people who are acceptable as collateral damage because they’ve failed to already kill you.

This is the part of freedom that isn’t free that you see quoted on so many bumper stickers.

Jesus would have had that bumper sticker if he had a car.

With that in mind, these people use the religion of Islam to spread their message of hate and murder as well as to hide behind a message of peace.

Kind of like how Mormons sometimes try to disguise their bigotry against homosexuals with some bullshit about how they’re trying to help them.

Therefore, I propose the following:

Oh no.

(1) That the practice of any sect of Islam be banned in the United States inasmuch as that sect is associated with terrorism or violence or seeking to kill innocent people.

I’ll get back to this one later…

In other words, once a mosque preaches that it’s okay to kill an innocent person, then that mosque is shut down, its assets seized, and its members imprisoned as enemies of the state.

Um, no. As much as it’s appalling to preach something like that, unless they actually plot to kill people, it shouldn’t be illegal. And being a member of a place of worship that preaches something like that is sure as hell not equivalent to treason.

I recently watched an old documentary about neo-nazi groups in America. These groups sometimes advocate the death of non-whites. As much as I despise these groups, we don’t have real freedom of speech if they’re not free to open their mouths and have everyone ridicule them.

If a group of practitioners of Islam wants to be separate from this harsh tactic, it is their job to help us understand how they are different from the people who are preaching hatred and violence.

They’re guilty until they can prove their innocence. It’s the American way!

(2) That the local, state, and federal law enforcement and military not only spy on but actively work with and within all sects of Islam in our country.

Again, let’s file this one for a little later…

It is their duty to find and eliminate all threats to innocent people in the United States, no matter where they are in the world.

No matter how counterproductive that strategy is.

I am asking myself if this is fair.

Now this gets fun.

To measure it, I replace the world “Islam” with “LDS Religion” or even “Christianity” or “Judaism”.

Oh, I can’t wait.

Ask yourself: If I belonged to a group of mormons who were actively killing innocent people and waging war against the American people, wouldn’t you want me hunted down and killed?

Uh, yeah, I think I would.

Or, if there were such a group of mormons, wouldn’t you demand to know how I, as a professed mormon, am separated from them?

No, I wouldn’t. If Mormons you don’t know are killing people, I wouldn’t accuse you of wanting to kill people, even if the Mormons were finding some justification within their religious teachings to do so. That’s what SeattleJew does, and that’s why he’s the biggest douchebag on the planet.

I would think so.

You’d be wrong. As you are about most everything.

Going back to the two statements I skipped, if the federal government was infiltrating Mormon groups that the most paranoid and unstable Mormons would start to be able to justify killing people in response.

Jonathan continues…

In times past, the LDS church was placed under such scrutiny because of rumors that we were trying to build a competing nation in the deserts of the West.

This is true.

Of course, these rumors were false, but the United States and the LDS members who, at the time, were living in Mexican territory, took these charges seriously and worked quickly to prove them right or wrong.

And a small group of Mormons killed over 100 people emigrating from Arkansas to California in the Mountain Meadows massacre. I guess, according to Jonathan, Mormonism should have then been banned in the United States.

In fact, President Buchanan sent an entire army to Salt Lake City to investigate, despite obvious evidence that the LDS people were an American-loving people who one day hoped to be a territory and then a state of the union.

The true irony here is that the major source of the conflict between the federal government and the LDS was that the federal government wouldn’t recognize Mormon marriage laws.

Of course, political correctness demands that we not label a spade a spade.

Just like recounting that history without mentioning the innocent people killed by Mormons.

Instead, we’re supposed to treat Islam as if it were the religion of peace, when in fact it most certainly is not based on its history from its very beginnings and practice in the modern era.

We should just treat Islam the way we treat all other religions. We don’t make accusations against individuals solely because others within the same religion have done bad things.

Sure, there may be a few sects that are peaceful, but until such time as they separated themselves wholly from the more militant factions, how are we supposed to distinguish the two?

Through our justice system, fool.

I have no use for political correctness.

You apparently have no use for common sense either.

There is no point in trying to soften the blow.

What?

What can kill you can kill you, and no matter how nice you try to make it sound, it is still death.

Huh?

And in that spirit, isn’t it the duty of every freedom loving people to actively wage war in whatever capacity we have against freedom hating elements of every society?

Sure, and that’s why I make fun of your stupid ass.

If so, then I am at war with militant Islam.

Good for you, and maybe if you had half a brain, you could look to the Utah War in the 1850s to understand the correlation between threatening to take away people’s liberty to worship as they please and their likelihood to kill out of paranoia.

President Bush has been vigilant in making this clear to the world.

I’m not sure President Bush is even awake for more than 5-6 hours a day any more.

It has driven the militant elements of Islam insane, while enlisting the support of the peaceful elements of Islam in support.

No, it hasn’t. Not even close, really. It’s done the complete opposite. It’s given Islamic militants messages that resonate with people in the Middle East and made it very difficult for more peaceful elements of Islam to win the internal battles.

The war isn’t pretty, nor is it always a victory for the US in every battle, nor is it bloodless.

Nor is it working, sadly.

Yet it is a war, a war that apparently President-Elect Obama will carry on for the foreseeable future simply because it is a necessary war.

Just like the war on drugs…sigh.

Case Closed

Friday, November 28th, 2008

– posted by thehim

Innocent until proven guilty was such an easy concept for me to grasp in school. It’s amazing how difficult it is for others. Justadog, take it away:

Curtis Lavelle Vance is the black man that brutally beat and slaughtered Anne Pressly, a 26 year old white anchorwoman.

Actually, Vance is the black man accused of brutally beating her.

Mr. Vance is a known criminal and fortunately has been arrested.

Actually, Mr. Vance has a DUI and some traffic violations on his record, so no, he’s not a known criminal. It’s certainly possible he’s the guilty party here, but we’re very far from knowing that.

Don’t worry – he won’t be punished because he is a victim of a something – I’m sure liberals will come to his defense.

Well, a public defender will be coming to his defense because of those namby-pamby liberal defeatists who wrote the Bill of Rights.

If this was a white man that beat and slaughtered a young black woman it would quickly be classified as a hate crime.

Unless the motive was robbery, or because he was a stalker.

However, blacks – especially black males – are exempt from racial hate crime charges so police are just calling it a random attack.

A helpful commenter already debunked this one.

Uh yeah, right.

Wow, so not only does Justadog claim to know that Vance is definitely guilty (hey, he’s black, so he must be a known criminal, right?), but she also claims to know the motive! I guess being a racist makes it so much easier to digest the news, don’t it?

Insane

Tuesday, November 25th, 2008

What the hell is going on at the Daily?

St. Joseph

Monday, November 24th, 2008

– posted by thehim

It’s Lou time:

Democratic Party regulars — read that Liberals and Ultraliberals — would never acknowledge it, but Barack Obama’s victory in the November election probably cost the party an opportunity to take a deep look into its past and its future and undergo the reorganization it sorely needs for America’s sake.

First step, go back to being an all-white party.

(more…)

Jim Miller: Media Watchdog

Monday, November 24th, 2008

Oh God, let this become a regular feature, I was getting tired of his silly attacks on KUOW.

Taking Names

Being able to kick ass would require more sit ups.

For years, I have wondered how outsiders like myself could improve our news organizations.  And I think that I have finally thought of a tactic that might work.

Masturbating while I read Marty Peretz doesn’t seem to be enough anymore.

What I have found over the years is that journalists will generally ignore criticism from the outside.  For example, if you send a polite email to a journalist asking them to make a correction, they will usually ignore you, unless it is something trivial, such as a misspelled name.  This is true even if you send them references that allow them to check the point in dispute.

Since Jim Miller doesn’t provide an actual example of this, let me tell you a true story from just this week. On Saturday, the New York Times printed an op-ed piece on the Mark Rich pardon that implied that pardoning someone who hadn’t been convicted was breaking a 200 year precedent. “The precedent against pardons for fugitives was set more than 200 years ago by President John Adams.”

I wrote to complain to the public editor, the ed page editor, and the author saying, shouldn’t you have, like, I don’t know, mentioned the Iran Contra pardons or y’know, um, the pardon of Nixon? And I got no response!!!!11!one! So, clearly Jim Miller is totally right, and it’s not just that they are busy people who get a ton of email from cranks like me.

A few weeks ago, thinking over this problem, I remembered the unlearned lesson of the Jayson Blair scandal; the New York Times mostly ignored the criticism of his stories from outsiders, but responded to criticism from other journalists.  Ironically, Blair was finally stopped, not because of a false story he had written — though he had written many — but because of a true story he had plagiarized.   (For readers, plagiarism by journalists is not a large problem, as long as journalists are stealing true stories from each other, but it is a large problem for journalists.)

Plagiarism isn’t that big of a deal for journalists as evidenced by Dorris Kearns Goodwin’s continued career. But I imagine Jim Miller writing to journalists, “dear the media, you say that John McCain wants to be in Iraq for 100 years, but what about pirates? Huh?!”

That suggests to me that I might be able to shame some of our local journalists into making corrections by sharing my critiques with, not just readers, but with other journalists.

“Dear journalists, please talk about how awesome the economy is under Bush.”

So I have decided to build up a mailing list of journalists, starting with local journalists.  And when I spot an error, I plan to share that error with those journalists, as well as with the readers of this site, and my own site.

I plan to let them know that I’m a crank, so they’ll keep listening to me. Or something!

And that’s where I would like your help.  Some names obviously belong on the list, for example, the publishers and the managing editors of the Seattle PI and the Seattle Times, along with everyone on their editorial boards.  And, of course, some of the editors at the industry publication, Editor and Publisher.  But who else do you think should be on that list?  I’d be especially interested in names of reporters at our local TV stations, since I ordinarily I pay little attention.

Yes, the best way to make sure you aren’t ignored is to send spam to King 5′s newsroom about how the Pig’s Eye did a story and supposedly got some detail wrong that you don’t like. Awesome!

You can make it easier for me by giving me their email addresses, whether privately, or in comments, if you happen to know them.

Teh google is too tough for me to operate.

Analogically Challenged

Thursday, November 20th, 2008

– posted by thehim

Victoria Taft:

Remember When Palin Was Not “Qualified?”

…because she was the mayor of the town Obama referred to as “Wasilly?” Of course she was governor, but the D’s talking points dictated that they downplay her experience and forget to mention the rest of her resume. So, here’s a question, now that the Anchorage mayor has been chosen to take over for Senator Ted Stevens, have there been any insinuations that he isn’t qualified?

A few points…

1) Mark Begich was not “chosen,” he was elected by the people of Alaska.

2) You need far more experience to be a 72-year-old man’s Vice President than to be a Senator from one of America’s smallest states.

3) Mark Begich knows that Africa is a continent.

Jim Miller Should Keep Looking Into That!

Thursday, November 20th, 2008

June of last year Jim Miller pointed out:

George W. Bush is given almost no credit for our current prosperity.

I hope he will keep exploring this point in the last few months of the administration.

Genocide and Slavery Don’t Count if it was America

Wednesday, November 19th, 2008

Michael Medved makes me sad.

Filmmaker Michael Moore hailed an election night “landslide of hope in a time of deep despair. In a nation that was founded on genocide and then built on the backs of slaves, it was an unexpected moment, shocking in its simplicity.”

Michael Moore is absolutely right, of course.

Actually, Mr. Moore’s ignorance is shocking in its simplicity.

Those Indians committed mass suicide so white people could live there: I mean der. And those slaves just were a bit underpaid really.

The notions that America was founded on genocide, and built its wealth mostly on the labor of slaves, are big lies – two of “The 10 Big Lies About America” that I wrote my new book to rebut.

I wrote me a whole book just to say that when America does slavery and genocide, it’s no big whoop.

Other big lies include, I’m guessing: Corporations have too much power. 2+2=4. Sometimes presidents have overreached their authority.

The truth about America shows an imperfect country, to be sure, but one struggling to do right and blessing its own people, and the world at large, as no other nation.

As Spiro Agnew probably didn’t say about America we’re, “still the greatest nation in the country.”

In a season of Thanksgiving, it’s more necessary than ever to confront the smears against our past and present – the big lies about America.

Excuse me, Michael Medved, but the whitewashing of slavery and genocide are a smear against us; a smear against those who still live with the consequences of those things. It’s a smear against those of us who try to prevent America from fucking up in the future.

Shorter FWC (part LXII)

Tuesday, November 18th, 2008

- posted by demo kid

Jonathan Gardner: Government uses force to achieve evil ends! Taxes are slavery! Everyone should have a gun, and be prepared to use it! (Maybe against the government!) This country was founded on liberty!

That’s excepting, of course, when it comes to sex outside of marriage, or gay sex, or being impolite. Then… well… why not use the government’s “evil” power to imprison or kill people that you don’t agree with, right? I mean, brutal social repression doesn’t really count as brutal social repression when you’re the one doing the repressing!

(And don’t mind the video cameras… they’re strictly for evidence.)

Next on the Effin Unsound book club reading list: The Handmaid’s Tale.