Less Is Moore

So let's see if we have all this straight:  Roy Moore has been fired twice from his judgeship because he's an incompetent christian sharia fascist, has taken campaign money from neo-nazis, paid himself a fat six-figure salary from his "charity," opined that Muslims should not be allowed to serve in Congress and homosexuals should be jailed -- but now, now, now that some Clownstick-voting mouth-breather has finally stepped forward after forty fucking years and talked about a 32-year-old Moore diddling her when she was 14 [so, in fourth grade? -- Ed.], he's finally considered unfit for the fucking job? Really?

Reminds me of the South Park episode right before the election (in the wake of the pussy-grabber tape), where Mr. Garrison/Clownstick went on an insult-comic tour and starts talking Dice Clay-style about sticking his finger up women's asses. Women start leaving the audience, glaring at their husbands to follow suit. Garrison cuts into his monologue and says, "Oh, you were fine when I talked about fucking all the illegal immigrants to death, but you have a problem with me sticking my finger up a woman's ass! Good to know you have boundaries!"

Much is being made of the Goopers' pussy (pardon the pun)-footing around this story with the two word qualifier if true. Friends 'n' neighbors, let's just dust off the ol' chainsaw and cut straight through the proverbial bullshit here -- it doesn't matter if these ancient allegations are true or not. Moore is manifestly unqualified and unsuitable for the job of US Senator many times over, on things we know with absolute certainty and which Moore has made no secret of, without ever needing to chase down the forty-year-old rabbit hole of whether he had a taste for teenage girls when he was in his thirties. Disgusting, sure. But he's already disgusting in many other more legally problematic ways.

Jesus H. Christ, he's literally compared the legalization of gay marriage to the Dred Scott decision, which only underscores the fact that he should never have been let anywhere near a courtroom in the first place, except perhaps as a defendant. A competent media would not be letting dipshits like Ben Sasse and Jeff Flake seek rhetorical cover over their sudden case of the vapors; they would be asking every single Republican senator how they feel about all the other things Moore has said over and over, and will say again with minimal prompting. He's proud of his 18th-century views of the world.

Fuck this shit. That state and this country deserve a turd like Roy Moore in the Senate. Hell, I'll vote for him for preznit. This country needs a goddamned enema, and this Howdy Doody-lookin' motherfucker is just the man to stick his hose up 'murka's stuck poop-chute.

More seriously and less polemically, this is and should be a very clear litmus test as to which side lives its principles. Think about all the recent "sexually inappropriate" scandals that have come out recently. Harvey Weinstein is done, and probably facing criminal charges. Kevin Spacey's career is likely over. Louis C.K.'s movie got dropped, and his show hasn't been funny in several years anyway. On the other side, Roger Ailes got a $40m golden parachute, Moore has a decent shot at a seat in the US Senate, and Fuckface Von Clownstick got elected. Only Bill O'Reilly had any consequences as a result of his behavior, and that was only after Fixed Noise shelled out tens of millions of dollars for multiple settlements.

And there are plenty of animals out there who would be happy to vote for Moore even if he had been caught red-handed fucking that 14-year-old, because decades of immersion in Hutu Power Radio has conditioned them to believe that Democrats = sociamalism, and a sociamalist is literally worse than a pedophile or even a murderer. That is not an exaggeration.

I have no idea how you even respond or relate to around-the-bend idiots like that, nor is it worth the effort to try. Leave them alone, let them fester in their bitterness and racism, life's losers in their fucking hick towns, refusing to learn about the world outside their clapboard existence, refusing to retrain for a skill that is actually valuable. Do not try to win them over, do not rub it in with I-told-you-so's -- but also don't fall for the Michael Moore schtick that we have to listen to them.

Seriously, what the fuck are we supposed to listen to from someone like Pam Schilling, from the Politico article, with the charming bit at the end about what NFL really stands for? How do you meet halfway with an idiot in denial? And why don't they ever have to meet anyone else halfway, ever? They are in the minority, after all.

The media don't seem to know this simple empirical fact, though. Every few weeks another one of these stupid "Cletus safari" pieces turns up, giving voice to these awful fucking people, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why. I don't care what jabbering idiots think about anything, and there is nothing informative about these pieces, except maybe to affirm what we all know -- that you can't fix stupid.

Person of Influence

Pro tip for all you folks who might be thinking of making a living telling other people how to live their lives, just because your mommy is famous for being a burbling quitter:  Remember, you can walk away at any time, if you find the kitchen getting too hot for comfort. Just a thought, but maybe you can spend the free time overcoming whatever it is in your life that finds you with three broken engagements and two out-of-wedlock children (by two different men) by the time you're 25 years old.

(Not to mention that the assumption that former fiancé Dakota Meyer is the father of this child may not necessarily be true, which would be really scandalous 'mongst the fambly valyews types. This is what happens when you don't take your whore pills.)

It's bad enough that Bristol Palin makes decent money doing nothing more than being a sanctimonious, hypocritical dunce, but what's unforgivably obnoxious is the "respect our privacy" nonsense. There's no one stopping you from going away, sweet cheeks. Trust me, no one will miss you. Go get a real job, toil away in obscurity with whatever other skill you might possess. No one's stopping you, and no one will check up on your comings and goings at the burger stand. You chose to put yourself in the public eye, no gun was put to anyone's head.

Ah, but that's always the problem in our "reality" teevee addled excuse for a society -- whenever one of these morons steps on their dicks, their first impulse is to exercise their right to privacy, but they still want to keep their public platform, their show, their blog, whatever revenue source they have to monetize their meager talent. They think they should be able to have it both ways, to use said platform to influence behavior and promote their social causes, and then when they're caught being hypocrites (which, you know, tends to undermine whatever value is created by their promotions), they want a pass and privacy. No. It doesn't work that way, unless you want to do the right thing and just go away already.

But that won't happen. The only that terrifies them more than having the easy money spigot turned off is finding out that they could completely disappear and nobody would notice.

Autolobotomy

It's not that Ben Carson is a "bad" or "evil" person, it's just that he's a jabbering maroon, a complete idiot. He might have a track record as a good or even great neurosurgeon, but he's clearly not even familiar with the basics of behavioral psychology, not mention basic common sense regarding homosexuality in prison.

Which, as it happens, seems to be a subject that many conservatives seem to think is just hilarious, especially the forced or coerced version of that "choice".

Carson at least possesses the ability to understand that he just looks more and more like an asshole on this particular subject, which is nothing more than a bizarre obsession 'mongst self-styled social conservatives. Blaming the 'mos for the decline and fall of the sainted 'murkin fambly, you see, is much simpler than, say, blaming the fact that the median wage is about what it was two generations ago, or that productivity in the US has doubled over the last 15-20 years, and every last penny of profit derived from those gains has gone straight to the owner class.

The "traditional" family is on the decline, partly because most of us have grown up about accepting other versions of the classic model, and partly because they've just been nickel-and-dimed and wage-slaved into penury, divorce, suicide, abuse. You can't support a family and buy a house on a fucking entry-level, minimum-wage slave job, which is about all that's left unless you're connected or lucky.

These people are as stupid about basic math as they are about, well, human beings in general. It would be something to see just one of them address an issue that actually affected anyone's life or well-being, instead of pandering to the usual claque of obsessive closet cases.

Return of the Ladies' Man

Speaking of dipshits who don't know when their fifteen minutes is up, remember Todd Akin? He's the knuckle-dragger in one of those flyover states who botched a fair chance at unseating Claire McCaskill, until he tried to play amateur gynecologist on teevee, and the wimmins were not amused.

After an apology that fooled nobody, Akin scuttled back into the woodwork, presumably distributing aspirins for sluts to keep between their knees. While nature may abhor a moron, America clearly loves them, and so of course Akin is back, with a book no less, one in which he retracts his bullshit apology, no doubt much to the relief of his true believers.

Here's Akin's assessment of how ladyparts can magically shut down their capacity to conceive:

“My comment about a woman’s body shutting the pregnancy down was directed to the impact of stress on fertilization. This is something fertility doctors debate and discuss. Doubt me? Google ‘stress and infertility,’ and you will find a library of research on the subject.”

We all make jokes about morons such as Akin pretending to be ob-gyns, but the serious fact about conservatives in general, and Akin in particular, is that this is their stock in trade, taking fairly obvious scientific distinctions -- in this case, fertility studies correlating "stress and infertility" in the context of infertile couples trying various methods in order to conceive -- and implanting (see what I did there?) them with their own biases. Conflating such studies with scientifically and statistically unverifiable -- that is to say, a steaming load of shit Akin pulled straight out of his own ass -- conjecture about rape victims biologically self-aborting, speaks volumes about the inability of these people to understand the difference between empirical data and tarted-up religious dogma.

What this really is all about, as Akin himself has made clear, is his obsession with abortion.

Akin later says during his time as a state legislator, he wished he could have done more to “end this evil,” referring to abortion, which in his view “easily trumps slavery as the greatest moral evil in American history.”

There's kind of an art to this sort of thing, if you think about it, to not only be completely hyperbolic over something that has actually been decreasing over the last twenty years, but to brazenly assert that it is a much bigger transgression than the centuries of rape, oppression, torture, murder, abuse, the sundering of families, the fucking buying and selling of human beings, forcing them to work until they drop, and keeping the profits, this should remove all doubt and permanently affix Todd Akin as an idiot and a scumbag.

But if you need just one more reason to convince you let it be his impassioned -- and completely incorrect -- defense of George "Felix Macacawitz, Junior" Allen:

In part, Akin uses the current political atmosphere and media to argue that trackers who follow candidates on the campaign trail are just looking for a candidate to slip up.

In that context, Akin defends former Virginia Gov. George Allen’s comments in 2006, when he called a tracker of Indian descent “macaca.” Allen would go on to lose to Democrat Jim Webb. The incident is even credited with dashing Allen’s national political ambitions.

“He could not possibly have known that, in the Portuguese language at least, the word means ‘monkey.’ Allen is not Portuguese … and neither was his opponent,” Akin writes.

Well, for one, Allen's opponent was Jim Webb, not the Indian cameraman whom Allen called "macaca". Second, while Allen may not be Portuguese, neither in particular is that word. It's a generic term used by European colonials in Africa to denigrate their native subjects. And hey, ho, whaddya know -- Allen's mother was a French national born and raised in Tunisia! This was all duly researched, verified, and chronicled back in 2006, does Todd Akin not have access to the Google, or does he only use it to feverishly squint at "stress and infertility" findings?

Perhaps just as revealing as Akin's stubborn guff is the comments in the linked article. As it predictably devolves into what Akin supposedly means, when it is perfectly clear to anyone who can actually read, the real point gets lost in the shuffle. The real point is that Akin's implications are multiple, and all of them are indefensible.

Akin's use of the phrase "legitimate rape", coupled with other comments of his, insinuate pretty clearly that he believes, though he provides no evidence or proof, either that rape must be violent to be "legitimate", or that some number of reported rapes are exaggerated by the victims. In fact, he appears to believe both of those things to some extent, though again he indicates no evidentiary knowledge of either one.

The assertion of the female body having mechanisms to shut down pregnancy as a biological response to violent rape, is perhaps one of the dumbest things ever to be uttered by a supposedly sentient human being. It betrays a complete lack of knowledge of history, particularly the history of warfare, where rape has been routinely used as a tool of war and conquest. One of the primary reasons we got involved in the Balkans in the late '90s, in addition to the Srebrenica massacre, was the widespread allegations of mass rape by military personnel. Again, rape has historically been the norm for conquering troops, as the easiest and quickest way to change the demographics of a conquered region.

More specifically, the statistical incidence of pregnancies resulting from rape is significant, and would seem to belie Akin's assertion of biological shutdown mechanisms. One would think that if it were that simple, there would be fewer than 32,000+ pregnancies per year resulting from rape. Maybe the mechanisms are broken; whatever the case, if they are not 100% infallible, one must ask if women -- adult women with their own identity and agency and rights, mind you -- can be trusted with the responsibility over their own reproductive health.

I don't have much patience with "civil" commenters such as "Hank" in the Politico comments, disingenuous tools who lament the callous incivility of intellectually dishonest liberals in practically the same breath as they launch some tired shot at Bill Clinton. Fine, Clinton was a cad and a dick, and his treatment of women has been execrable. That has no effect on the fact that Todd Akin is either a vicious liar, or an impossibly stupid person who has no business anywhere near a position of responsibility.

But the real issue here, as always, is control over the sex lives of women. Let's put it out there right now -- if any of this touched on the sex lives of men, there would be no debate, real or contrived. That shit is settled. Nobody tells us where or when to put our cocks. But somehow this bullshit persists over what women can or can't do with their junk. I think the main difference is that there are actually other women who assist in these stupid battles, where you would never find a man who would participate in repressing -- or even affecting, even a little bit -- our right to do what the fuck we want.

It takes a dickhead like Todd Akin to crystallize these nonsensical attempts to control the reproductive activities of women, but it is only with the active or passive acquiescence of other women that any of this stuff gains any traction. We can't do it without you, ladies.

Best of Breed

Usually one encounters magical thinking in a cloak of a conservative stripe, such as Iraq War dead-enders from the Cheney regime. Religious wingnuts who quite literally believe and expect that their invisible buddy, the same guy who lets infinite, routine evil take place every day and everywhere, is looking out for them, if only they believe correctly and sufficiently. Climate-change deniers, birthers, people who are simultaneously convinced that Obama is both singularly dumb and inept, yet cunning and ruthless enough to pull off incredibly baroque conspiracies. You know the type.

There are liberal magical thinkers as well, and one of the more interesting types is the bien pensant reproductive rights absolutist, the pastry-brained doofuses who will write impassioned defenses of the "rights" of people who refuse to take personal responsibility for their lives, yet have nothing to say at all for the rest of society, who are forced to financially support those rights.

This is just awesome:

“When we first had the twins, the only person in my family getting aid was my oldest son,” she said. “We didn’t have money to buy them car seats to get home [from the hospital]. …We didn’t have money to pay for diapers, wipes, shampoos, and toiletries. … I am here to tell you that I am trying my best to be a great mom. I do not need to be punished for deciding to have children.”

Right, so let's punish everyone else by making them foot the bill for your "decisions". Is that how this works? Setting aside the fact that, in California and most other large states, car seats are free through the WIC program, there is this tone, this preening tone of expectation on the part of both subject and writer. They were owed this stuff, see.

Lady, I doubt most people care whether you "decide" to have two or four or ten children. I don't, except to the extent that the planet is already overcrowded with the human virus. But the tacit deal that you accept when you sign up for public assistance is that you're in a bit of a hole, and so maybe it's time you stop digging. Is it too much to ask that you at least put down the shovel?

I get that what families receive on CalWORKs or CalFresh or TANF is a relative pittance, and that compared to what corporations and super-wealthy individuals skip out on tax-wise, it's practically nothing. Still, there is something immensely off-putting about someone complaining about having to wait in line for free shit. I know, if I drop it by your house during my lunch hour from work, would that be easier on you, dear? I mean, come on. Birth control is free. No one is making you have kids you can't afford. There is no excuse for this nonsense.

But what's worse is the insinuation by the writer of the article that the family cap is just eugenics in a different guise. Old wine, new bottles, yada yada. Well, bullshit. I sure as hell couldn't care less about race as it pertains to this issue, and I doubt most people do either. What I care about is working my ass off to just get by, and having 25% taken off the top of my measly paycheck, getting nothing for it, and these people fucking complain about stuff being given to them.

Or the deadbeat douchebag who got incentivized into doing the planet a favor and getting a vasectomy, only after having seven or eight kids by almost as many women. This too apparently is the nose of the eugenics camel poking into the proverbial tent. Why does Melissa Ortiz get to "decide" to have more kids that she can't afford, and the rest of us can't "decide" in turn that we shouldn't have to support them for her? Why does everyone else have to pay for a dipshit like Jesse Lee Herald (who is white, btw) to mindlessly spray his seed into every available orifice? Hell, if anything, this should be standard procedure. If there's one thing the world could use less of, it's freeloading dipshits.

Flying Spaghetti Monster knows I shudder at the prospect of being on the same side of an issue -- any issue -- as the denizens of the feces-throwing Faux News monkey house. I don't want to be on the same side of anything as Bill O'Reilly or Sean Hannity. But goddammit, I think working-class taxpayers are being squeezed quite enough, thank you. Anyone between 40-50 years of age is already looking at a royal reaming in the decade to come, as retiring boomers hoover up the medical and Social Security dollars. The goalposts will get moved on us, because we should have to retire later and poorer so those motherfuckers can get their hip replacements. And we'll get jack shit in return.

And to add insult to injury, we're supposed to just sit by and subsidize people who refuse to get out of their own way. Well, forgive me if I politely decline. I'm absolutely in favor of helping people who have had a run of bad luck, are doing what they can to get rolling again. I'm glad there is a safety net for those folks, and it should stay there, and in fact be increased to some extent (increased funding, better job training). And I've talked to them personally, listened to them while they break down over losing their jobs, having a spouse fighting cancer, any number of things. It breaks your heart. They want to get back to what they've earned, and I hope we continue to help them as much as possible. But that's not who we're talking about here.

So in the meantime, perhaps the folks that can control the major aspects of their lives -- such as whether or not to have four kids while on the dole -- should start taking a little responsibility for themselves. I have very little patience for that "tough love" shit, the Dr. Phil sort of hectoring at hapless bumpkins who never got the memo about impulse control and decision making. But this is one of those times when it's true. No one's proposing to bring back Buck v. Bell, but there is an expectation that people make an honest effort to pull their own weight.

This is one of those externalities of the vaunted "post-scarcity" society we have apparently sought as a by-product of globalizing outputs through Third World despotisms. But the thing is, when you have more people than you have things for them to do, you have to be careful about the activities you continue to incentivize. I mean, if someone's willing to pay me to sit around and fuck all day, I'll take their money. But as misanthropic as I am, I'd like to think that even the average 'murkin is at least smarter than that.

Outkicking the Coverage

Still trying to process both sides of the meta-issue surrounding gay marriage: on the one hand, people should be able to register their opinions without fear of retribution, and businesses (especially small businesses) as a rule of thumb ought to be able to refuse service to whomever they choose; on the other hand, substitute the word "black" for "gay" in each of these instances, and see how that all resonates.

The acceptability of gay marriage has taken place with such speed and scale and breadth that it is difficult to keep up with it, and therefore difficult to develop sufficient mechanisms for talking about people who, less than a decade ago, were on the side of a clear majority, and now find themselves scrambling to find a viable role as principled dissenters.

There is a very clear distinction between, say, the late and unlamented Fred Phelps' psychotic, traitorous death cult, obsessing to an unholy degree over the very existence of homosexuals, and a small bakery or mom-and-pop photo studio that just isn't comfortable with providing services to something they don't believe in. It doesn't excuse the latter group from growing up on the issue, mind you, but they probably also don't deserve to get dragged into court over it.

Where the linked article makes a categorical error is in lumping every instance of late into a half-baked dish of opinions and outcomes. What happened with Phil Robertson, Brendon Eich, and the state of Arizona, all of them employees or business concerns being pressured by the interests of capitalism and customer pressure, is simply the way things work. Each of those folks said or did something that many gays found insulting, and activist groups, by definition, mobilized and made it clear that, well, gays collectively have enough discretionary income to respond in kind. In other words, they made it clear that they don't have to take shit from people who depend on customers, be they teevee viewers or tourists. Simple as that.

We all see instantly how offensive, in just the last couple of days, the comments from LA Clippers owner Donald Sterling and teahadi ranchtard Cliven Bundy have resonated. There's just nothing debatable or defensible there. Well, Phil Robertson has repeatedly compared gays to criminals, drunkards, bestial enthusiasts. Should gays have to take shit from some pigfucking hillbilly, or do they have the right to tell Robertson's employer that maybe they won't patronize their product anymore?

Arizona was ready to legitimize the "turn away the gay" rights of businesses, and in a state that earns a good chunk of revenue from tourism, and is hosting the next Super Bowl, it became clear pretty quickly that their moralizing was going to cost them. Everything has its price.

Again, when we compare the ledger on each side, I would say that these noble, principled dissenters who suddenly find themselves unjustly persecuted for merely speaking their wittle minds, need to take a look at the big picture. In more than half the US states, people can still be fired just for being gay. No one, to my knowledge, has ever been beaten or killed for voicing their opinion against gay marriage, or homosexuals in general.

I think they're mostly just surprised at how quickly the tide of opinion turned against what they had thought was safe and acceptable. And that's okay, for a while, but it's time to get the memo, and understand that this dialogue -- a dialogue, let's remember, about the lives and rights of a group of consenting, law-abiding, tax-paying adults -- is back-and-forth. Each side has an inalienable right to call bullshit on the other for disingenuousness and intellectual dishonesty, and to vote accordingly with their wallets if necessary. Ain't that America?

Offensensitivity

Perhaps because the majority of the country has changed so much and so quickly on the issue, "gay marriage" is developing a set of meta-issues, and rather absurd ones at that. Now the question is longer whether discriminating against gay couples bears the same nasty whiff that discriminating against interracial couples did 40-50 years ago.

The most recent and persistent epiphenomenon is the martyrdom meme, perhaps best characterized in the self-imposed travails of Duck Dynasty honcho Phil Robertson and Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich, the latter who was forced to resign for his contribution to California's Proposition 8 campaign back in 2008. So now Conor Friedersdorf's correspondent seems to epitomize the sort of person who feels aggrieved at whatever chilling effect is supposed to have taken place, as far as "allowing" what the aggrieved feel is legitimate difference of opinion.

And so it is, to a certain extent. Ostensibly, one of the great strengths of this country is that everyone has the right to be wrong, and even to be an asshole about it, so long as said opinion picks no pockets and breaks no arms. And that's where the problem arises, since in more than half of US states, you can be fired just for being gay in the first place, forget trying for a supposedly meaningless equal right to get married.

Nothing in life is absolute, and this applies to the Bill of Rights as well; you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't bring an assault rifle into a courthouse. There are balances that are struck all along the way in these sorts of debates, and hey guess what -- the First Amendment doesn't apply to companies and places of work. You can be an asshole, and other people can call you such. That's how it works.

That means that you can -- and should -- be fired from your job if you, say, host a website that advocates race war or features the crushing of small animals for the amusement of fucking creeps, even if such things happen not to be against the law (inexplicably, in the latter instance). You can, in fact, be fired from your job just for saying something impolitic, if your boss happens to feel that said speech costs the company sales and revenue. This is not exactly a secret or a surprise, and yet here you have grown-ass adults genuinely shocked that their sincerely, deeply held spiritual beliefs do not automatically grant them immunity from the consequences of discourse.

That's at least part of the reason why so many of us choose to blog in relative anonymity -- not to completely absolve ourselves from any and all consequences of what we might say out here on the internets, but because we are aware that even if we say something that is logical and accurate, we can still be held liable for it, if it has an adverse (or even a potential or perceived) impact on any organization we might be part of.

This particular issue is an opportunity to examine the idea that one's beliefs, no matter how sincere, do not automatically immunize them from participating in the same verbal scrum as the rest of us. I promise you, the small hint of opprobrium, of "hate" and "fear" as the CF correspondent put it, is a drop in the bucket compared to what "outsider" groups have felt even in the last generation or two, from gays to atheists to civil rights and antiwar protesters.

I think those folks and many others would find the idea hilarious, that someone could say something they have a pretty good idea will hit a significant portion of people the wrong way, and still expect to be exempt from even legitimate criticism (as opposed to, you know, the discrimination and violence that many dissenting groups have routinely faced). It may not be 100% "fair" to ostracize or fire someone for voicing the "wrong" opinion, but it is also not the duty of the rest of society to wait around for these people to start unpacking their ideological baggage, and letting it go, once and for all.

Gay for Play

Well, it's about time -- a well-known college player from a highly-ranked program who will almost certainly be drafted comes out as gay before the draft. Short of an already established player coming out, this should have a pretty good-sized response, perhaps even an impact.

Or not. No doubt some knuckle-draggers will have some nasty things to say about Michael Sam, the same sorts of assholes that thought it was cool to call Richard Sherman the n-word after Sherman's amped-up outburst at the end of the NFC Championship Game. The hell with 'em.

Sam's declaration will get some chatter, but it wouldn't surprise me too much to see people either shrug or openly support his announcement. It's just not that big of a deal anymore. If English rugby players -- you know, the guys who do most of the same things American football players do, but without pads -- can come out and be accepted by their teammates, then this should not be a problem.

Still, it takes some guts on Sam's part, in that it could affect where he lands in the draft, and thus his pocketbook. But one would assume that he'll be happier not having to hide or play games, and maybe some of the few remaining holdouts on this issue will grow up a little in the process.

Weiner? I Nearly Killed Her!

Carlos DangerAnthony Weiner's problem is not specifically that he's a sexting fool; his problem is that he is apparently a full-blown, mouth-breathing, window-licking, short-bus riding moron.

On the other hand, Carlos Danger. Now there's a pseudonym you can use to order pizza. Perhaps the best fake name since Ron Mexico.

The Church of Jesus H. Christ of Latter-Day Aints

I've heard rumors that they have newspapers and such like out in ol' West Virginny (as Stephen Colbert once said about Arkansas:  come for the meth, stay because you sold your car for meth), so you kinda wonder what sort of rock this high school principal lives under. First, that he never got the memo that the abstinence and slut-shaming routine doesn't work (especially in places like WV where, frankly, there's nothing else to do), then that he tried to coerce the student body president over her not attending their bullshit assembling. Gee, I wonder why the smart kids leave these festering hick towns and never look back.

Because yeah, I'm sure Wellesley going to be reeeal pissed that a young woman had the temerity to think and act in her own rational self-interest, rather than kowtowing to what some cornfed religious asshole tried to decide for her.

The Groupie Routine

I guess since there aren't any princess boobies or self-immolating celebritards this week to gawk, we have to contrive an opinion on the sudden surge (in my pants) of milfhunting generals and their power groupies. Obviously it's all about someone at State or CIA fucking the dog on that Benghazi thing, and the ensuing coverup, or something. The beauty of a really good conspiracy theory is that you can make things up as you go along.

Of course, it doesn't help things that apparently classified information has been found on Paula Broadwell's computer. D'oh! Or, as another theory has it, this is a way (however inelegant) of pushing off one of the last remaining neocon foreign policy holdovers.

Either way, when Kissinger stated the obvious by identifying power as the ultimate aphrodisiac, he was wildly understating the case.