Sometimes Howard Stern Hits the Nail on the Head...

...and other times he comes off sounding like a fucking tool. The Democrats are communists? You know, last time I checked, the Democrats were putting together a bill that was essentially a blowjob to the health insurance companies. Last time I checked, most of the Democrats, like the Republicans, were corporate prostitutes. If only politicians were required to wear the logos of the companies that pay them, much like NASCAR drivers do. If the leading party in the United States was the Communist Party, the FCC would be the last thing on Howard Stern's mind. He'd be too busy trying to keep his head off of a pike.

The Road to Recovery

I just received a mass e-mail from David Plouffe, the organizing genius behind the Obama 2008 campaign. The e-mail includes the above chart, contrasting job loss rates between the Bush and Obama administrations. The Obama supporter in me wants to say: “Haha! See that? Buck Fush. Obama’s come to save the day.” But my inner skeptic sings a different tune. The chart does an effective job in mirroring Bush from Obama (or vice versa), with the message being: A) Bush = bad; Obama = good, B) Bush = down; Obama = up. Right? But that’s kind of misleading. Could it not be that the exorbitant job loss rates at the end of 2008 until the beginning of 2009 were simply the absolute zenith? Would we imagine job loss to have ever been over 1,000,000 per month? Unlikely (but what do I know). Bottom line: While this chart is reassuring in presenting dwindling job loss rates, it’s safe to be skeptical until job loss is reversed (i.e. when we’re talking about job growth, not job loss). Just my two cents.

Reason #2784276 Why I'm Not a Zionist

Israel has a (ridiculous) policy of mandatory military service for every non-Arab (ahem) citizen once they turn 18 years old. This rule applies to both men and women. Men are required to serve for three years, while women must serve two. There are, of course, some exceptions. If you have a medical condition, either physical or psychological, you may be exempted from military service. Women who are married are given a pass as well. Additionally, and most controversially, you may defer from military service if you are an Orthodox Jew a “religious person.”

I’ve got some Israeli friends. Some of them are religious, some of them aren’t. The secular Israelis I’ve spoken to on this matter often express a deep resentment towards and against Orthodox Jews for their pussyfooting tendencies. Essentially, religious service dodgers are chickenhawks – hawks to the concept of war, chicken to their own participation in its practice. As a Jew who stands on the outside of this debate, I’ve always sympathized with the secular Israelis’ argument. Why must they bare the brunt of war and civil hostility – dead sons, daughters, brothers, sisters… – while these black hat dweebs snug their noses inside of the Talmud all day long?

Supermodel Bar Refaeli was recently called out by an Israeli army general, accusing her of deferring from the military. Apparently she joined into a sham marriage in order to dodge the service and then divorced the temporarily-lucky sucker soon afterwards. What was my initial reaction when I read this story? Good for her! She did whatever she could to avoid joining the army. I’d do the same if there was a draft in this country (unless it was a war I deemed just, like WWII). I’m not just supporting her decision because she’s a supermodel. Like I said, I would’ve done the same thing. But let’s kick the facts for a second, shall we? Smoking-hot model chick: must join the army. Haredi Jew: exempt. Huh? Why? Scratch the “smoking-hot model” part. Religious Jews get a pass but women don’t (unless they’re married)? That’s some ol’ bullshit. Israel is often called the “only democracy in the Middle East.” How so? Seems like a theocracy if you ask me…

The State of Israel was once conceived by secular Jews – many, if not most of them, were atheists – who envisioned a socialistic Jewish homeland. Then it got hijacked by right-wing fanatics who impose their primitive, religious beliefs on everyone else, conveniently covering their own asses from the problems they’ve created while making the innocent suffer the consequences. Yet another reason why I, a Jew, can never be a Zionist.

The H8 Continues | Politics as Usual

By now I’m sure you’ve heard of a proposed bill in Uganda which would authorize the execution of homosexuals. And you thought Prop 8 was bad! Obviously opposed by gay groups, I think that anybody with two brain cells to rub together should be outraged about this legislation that’s actually being taken into serious consideration. Pastor Rick Warren of the Saddleback Church has come under fire for his very own influence – intentional or not – on the matter. Apparently his books “inspired” religious leaders and lawmakers to come up with this bill. It took him a while to come up with a statement, but it’s finally here:


The message is great. But is this just rhetorical propaganda/face-saving PR? I suspect that he’s saying one thing, and doing another “behind closed doors” as he would put it? I hadn’t heard of Rick Warren until the previous election cycle when Barack Obama and John McCain were to debate one another at Warren’s church. Oddly enough, it wasn’t a debate at all but rather an interview scrutinizing each candidate’s political views as they relate to matters of interest to Christians in specific: gays and abortion. It was called the “Purpose-Driven Debate”. The purpose, of course, to put Obama on the hot seat. Unsurprisingly, Obama was selected to be questioned first. I still wonder to this day if McCain was able to watch the first segment of the “debate” and anticipate the questions he’d be asked. Oh, wait – no I don’t! It was fairly obvious. Aaaanyways…

While Rick Warren can talk the good talk, his walk is up for discussion. Rick Warren’s mentor and advisor, a man by the name of C. Peter Wagner, is a part of this controversy as well. As Bruce Wilson of Talk to Action points out in an eye-opening piece, Wagner’s “dominionist” credence of allowing the church to take control over society is worrisome and relevant to what Uganda’s government is trying to do. C. Peter Wagner is the presiding Apostle of the ICA (the International Coalition of Apostles), a network which includes a pool of virulently anti-gay religious leaders, some of which were actively involved in the push for California’s Prop 8 last year. The ink from Prop 8 is still on Rick Warren’s fingertips. In the end, there’s not much evidence to lead us to believe that Warren’s beliefs – on the issue of the Ugandan bill or others – varies at all from this medley of Bible-thumping wackos.

Religious fanatics really crack me up because they try to juxtapose 21st century living with the outdated writings of “religious and political hustlers”, as George Carlin called the authors of “holy scripture” /s. An archaic book written with a primitive mindset should hold no clout in the world today. And even when they try to liberalize, so to speak, the harsh credence of the Testaments, they still end up getting caught by their own Good Book. Technically, homosexuals do deserve the death penalty according to the Bible. So why is Pastor Rick Warren against it (if he really is)? Secular humanism or bust…

Apathy Sets In | Politics as Usual

He hasn’t waved his wand and fixed the economy! He hasn’t gotten us out of Iraq and Afghanistan! He hasn’t fixed the health care system! Jeez, Barack Obama is such an asshole!

Only in our overly-medicated, A.D.D.-plagued society of wishy-washy idealists could you be so hysterical (double meaning there) and impetuous. If I hadn’t seen the above pic shared by nearly all of my Google Reader contacts, I probably wouldn’t be so peeved about it since I catch a good whiff of anti-Obama rhetoric just about every day. But I get pissed off by this shit.

The problem lies on both ends of the spectrum. On the right, you’ve got Reagan-worshippers who mourn their long-gone flag-bearer of conservatism. They resent the fact that Barack Obama is the left’s own Ronnie Wilson. They call him a Messiah to mock his followers – sometimes they’re right – while hypocritically dumping undeserved praise on Reagan as if he’ll rise up from the dead and take them to the promised land. Then on the left, you’ve got folks who aren’t really hip to the game of politics and the machine of Washington, D.C.; these people got caught up in the hype of the ’08 election and expected the world to change in January of ‘09. Well, it did change! Obama is popular all across the globe and Americans don’t have to throw a red maple leaf button on their traveling bags anymore. But it didn’t change that much. How drastic did you expect it to be? In just ten months? Really? I could never understand the basis for this blind flock of sheep’s otherworldly vision of the future. And that goes for the left and the right.

Here’s the scenario: Right-wingers are going batshit, hollering “gimme back my country” at town halls and left-wingers are down and out because they expect more from Obama. Shit. Meanwhile, Barack’s carrying a steady pace through the middle, just like he said he would, just like rational voters (thaaaat’s me!) anticipated from the get go. If your hope is fading already, you didn’t have much to begin with. That or your head was wedged so firmly up your ass, entangled in the t-shirts, bumper stickers, that catchy O logo and the plethora of celebs who showered their support. And now, to show your dissatisfaction with the Prez, you’re gonna buy another t-shirt. How… fitting. Wake your ass up to your own ineptitude, please!

When it comes to politics, I’m an outspoken guy. I’ve brought a lot of conservative friends and acquaintances down at otherwise cheery events (i.e. house parties, etc.). Sorry ‘bout that (really). I wear my political heart on my shoulder. Fuck a hipster douchebag t-shirt. For what it’s worth, I’m also one of those sorry saps who’s waiting on Barack to turn the heat up and put the pressure on. But I recognize that he walks a fine line on some Philippe Petit type shit. You should too. And if you knew what this game will do to you (whattup, Big), it’s that it crushes your spirit. So keep hope alive.

Have you called a local representative about health care? Have you shown your dissatisfaction with them? You know, the politicians who openly ignore the majority of their constituents who are crying out for the public option, bowing instead to big business. No? Of course not. You’re too busy buying an overpriced t-shirt.

You could be one of those Alex Jones-listening conspiracy theorists (*cough* Bol *cough*) who have valid issues to raise against Obama and how he’s continuing the policies of his predecessor. Hey, I fux with you more than the apatheists because at least you’re digging for truth. But I still think it’s too early to seal the book on the President just yet. The angry left does a great disservice to people who actually need affordable health care and folks who want to see their loved ones abroad come back home when we’re as hostile to the president as the right-wing is.

That’s how the right-wing always gets us when a Democrat is in power. They attack. We back down. But when they come to power, they stick together and put up an iron curtain. We attack. They attack us back. They don’t eat their own like we do. We should change that. The only thing fading is your own participation. Change that too.

Aubrey O’Day > Pat Buchanan | Politics as Usual

^ HAWT ^

A few days ago, a friend put me on to this video of Aubrey O’Day allegedly “praising” Fidel Castro and Adolf Hitler. My first reaction was “who the fuck is Aubrey O’Day?” A quick Google search – and a not-so-quick Playboy search – led me to the answer. Anyways, here’s the video of Ms. O’Day discussing Castro and Hitler:


Now as you know, I’m a supporter of Castro. He banished a corrupt government from his homeland and effectively spit in the face of imperialism. And he’s still on his A-game! Rightfully so, O’Day – who I was surprised to learn had met with and “worked with” Castro – called him an “incredibly brilliant man”. Leave it to Sean Hannity, the master of straw-man arguments, to throw out the name Adolf Hitler to try to A) equate him with Castro, and B) trip up Aubrey. Now obviously I – especially being a Heeb – can’t “defend” Hitler. But I will admit that he was a clever man. And O’Day retorted by saying something to the same effect. Facts is facts, but it’s still not a good PR look. The right-wing can have their laughs, but at the end of the day, Aubrey O’Day said something she didn’t need to say and… something that turned out to be true, as provocative and uncomfortable as it may be.

Now along comes Pat Buchanan, a man who has often been criticized for his racist and anti-Semitic rhetoric – even back to the days when he worked for Richard Nixon! (Oddly enough, a great number of the Floridians who fucked up on the 2000 election’s “butterfly ballots” were elderly Jews). Unrelated to O’Day’s Fox News appearance, Buchanan pens an article essentially defending Adolf Hitler and insisting that the Nazi leader never planned on instigating World War II. This is offensive on so many levels it’s incomprehensible.

Buchanan begins the article with this historical image: “On Sept. 1, 1939, 70 years ago, the German Army crossed the Polish frontier.” Germany invades Poland, got that? Now check out this sentence that appears at the end of the essay: “Hitler had never wanted war with Poland, but an alliance with Poland such as he had with Francisco Franco’s Spain, Mussolini’s Italy, Miklos Horthy’s Hungary and Father Jozef Tiso’s Slovakia.” Huh? You just said he invaded Poland.

Another point that pissed me off about this piece – aside from the macro-view of the paper’s thesis – is this little tidbit which directly follows the first aforementioned quote: “Six years later, 50 million Christians and Jews had perished.” Now why did he do that? Why did he lump Christians and Jews together in this sentence? He did it to devalue the loss of the 6 million Jews who died in the Holocaust. His underlying argument is basically that 44 million, over seven-fold the number of Jews who died, is a much more important statistic. That may be so if we’re strictly focusing on the numeric value of these atrocities. But let’s remember that Jews are a tiny, tiny portion within European/Christian society. By ratio, the Jews clearly suffered the greatest loss of all. Here's the proof: in 1939, there were roughly 17 million Jews total in the world. That means that Adolf Hitler was responsible for the deaths of one third of the Jewish population in the world!!!!! And let’s remember how the Jews died: in ovens, gassed to death, through forced labor, with minuscule food and medicine rations; and the one that horrifies me the most: on operating tables at the hands of “surgeons” performing grotesque medical experiments sans anesthesia.

Look: I’m not one of those Heebs who “plays the Holocaust card”. But I do know an anti-Semite when I see, hear or read from one; and the fact that MSNBC keeps this Nazi apologist on their payroll is appalling. In light of Buchanan’s brief display of candor and his true colors, I’d suggest that MSNBC reconsider their options and replace him with Aubrey O’Day. I’d probably glean more rational ideas from Aubrey anyways; that, and she can gitit!

Bibi’s Bloody Hands | Politics as Usual

Artwork by Carlos Latuff
(Gallery Here)

Most American Jews vote Democratic and/or lean to the political left. This is a fact, and it’s a fact that I’m very proud of. The Jewish Virtual Library offers a set of statistics dating back to the 1910’s, showing American Jewry’s long-standing progressive voting record. With exception to one election in 1920, American Jews have always voted for the Democratic candidate by a majority, often by a landslide. You might be asking yourself “What happened in 1920?” Well, this was the year that Eugene V. Debs, candidate of the Socialist Party of America, led an impressive though ultimately unsuccessful bid for the presidency. Statistically, Warren G. Harding of the Republican party earned the most votes from American Jews. Harding earned 43% of the vote. Debs won 38% of the vote. Debs ran his campaign from prison; I kid you not! Combining the Democratic and Socialist votes versus the Republican votes displays a win for the Left nonetheless; 57% for Democrat/Socialist vs. 43% for Republican. Jews have often been dubbed “the other Black vote” – and for good reason. The bottom line is that Jews lean to the left on the political spectrum.

Historically, there have always been right-leaning, elitist Jews who have harassed progressive Jews and persecuted independent thinkers. Jesus comes to mind. So does Maimonides, a rabbi and renowned philosopher whose books were even burned by Jewish traditionalists in his time. The Baal Shem Tov and Rabbi Nachman were also shunned by established Jewry in their days. And the legacy goes on to this very day. Left-leaning intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Rabbi Michael Lerner have all been called “self-hating Jews” by the right-leaning, Zionist establishment. The similarities between the terms “self-hating Jew” and “Uncle Tom” have been widely discussed, but I’ve thought of another comparison. Being called a “self-hating Jew” is akin to being against the war in Iraq and being called “anti-patriotic” for “not supporting the troops”. It’s a clever bumper-sticker-ready trick that the right-wing plays, often to great success. It’s a shame because nothing could be further from the truth. Wanting to bring the troops back home (more so, wanting to have never sent them in harm’s way in the first place) is as pro-troops of a stance as possible.

But the terms “self-hating Jew” and “Uncle Tom” go their separate ways because of one major entity: the existence of Israel. In this country, you’re either pro-Black or you’re not. But within the Jewish community, there’s an added layer of stigma that gets tossed around. Are you pro-Jewish? Are you pro-Israel? Are you pro-Zionism? Simple at face value, these are actually incredibly loaded questions. And you’d be surprised to know the number of Jews who don’t answer these three questions in the affirmative. I am one of them. Personally speaking, I’m as pro-Israel as I am pro-Palestine. I am opposed to Zionism because it is a fundamentally racist clause and I can’t be a hypocrite who opposes apartheid in South Africa but approves of the hell that Arabs and Palestinians have to pay. Chomsky agrees. Finkelstein agrees. Lerner agrees. In essence, if you support the human rights of Jews less than or equal to the human rights of Arabs and Palestinians, you are automatically labeled a self-hating Jew by the Zionist wing of Jewry (and Evangelical Christians – but that’s another story for another day).

Yitzhak Rabin is the only Prime Minister of Israel who was assassinated. He was also the closest to reach a peace deal with the Palestinians. He was assassinated by an Israeli right-wing fanatic. And Benjamin Netanyahu, in my supposition, has Rabin’s blood on his hands.

Charles D. Smith’s Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict: A History with Documents delineates the conflict between the Labor and Likud parties in Israel. Over halfway through the book, Smith details the building animosity by Israel’s right-wing against Rabin’s pro-peace stance. Anti-Rabin rallies were held, in which Rabin, then the Prime Minister of Israel, was characterized as a Nazi with an SS uniform, beneath the image of the crosshairs of a sniper rifle. CNN still has a website up, which features an image of this despicable rally poster.

Netanyahu was also quoted as saying that Rabin’s government was “removed from Jewish tradition… and Jewish values”. Doesn’t that kind of sound like he’s calling him a “self-hating Jew”? To make matters worse, Netanyahu attended this anti-Rabin rally, and addressed the rabid group of protesters, unmistakably provoking the violent rage that ultimately took Rabin’s life. Now, who’s the self-hating Jew? The Jew who attempts to make peace with Palestinians, or the Jew who incites a (literally) murderous riot against a fellow Jew?

Now Benjamin Netanyahu is calling both Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, President Obama’s respective Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor, a pair of “self-hating Jews”. The saga continues. Look, there are times when the term “self-hating Jew” is totally applicable. Daniel Burros, a Jew who eventually joined the American Nazi Party (and became the inspiration for the 2001 film The Believer) was a self-hating Jew. But Rahm Emanuel served in the Israeli Army, for crying out loud! How is he a “self-hating Jew”!?

For too long, the Zionist wing of Jewry has pulled more “self-hating Jew” taunts from the deck than a house of cards. Here’s to hoping it’ll come crashing down on them soon enough…

A Fucktard Named Speidi* | 'Politics as Usual'

Ivster’s Dictionary:

Speidi: A contraction of ‘Spencer’ and ‘Heidi’.

Fucktard: A contraction of ‘fucking’ and ‘retard’.

Their only contribution that I can think of thus far is the highly-fappable image above. That’s it. Let it be known that these imbeciles aren’t really worth my time. Or your time. Quite definitively, they are a waste of time. And air. They’re also an easy target. This’ll be like pinning the tail on a donkey made entirely out of… tail. I never thought it’d come down to this, but it has. Lord, help us all (and I’m a non-theist). Truthfully, this bimbo and mimbo (i.e. a male bimbo, yet another entry in Ivster’s Dictionary) lack depth; as such, this post will follow accordingly.

I’m writing in response to recent chatter that Speidi, as they’ve been affectionately dubbed, made some recent statements regarding 9/11. “Controversial” statements. This tidbit of information would have evaded my radar had Byron Crawford not posted it on his car-wreck of a blog - a car-wreck, because no matter how vile and vulgar it may be, you find yourself glued to it, and always coming back. How’s that for a plug? I digress. Apparently Speidi were on Alex Jones’ show. Alex Jones, for those that don’t know, is a really smart guy who foments dialogue on the stuff that doesn’t make it into your daily newspaper. To some he’s a conspiracy theorist. To others, he’s a conspiracy realist. Personally, I think he’s got some great things to say, but I’m not a follower. I have enough problems with the world I know about, I don’t feel like dealing with the problems taking place behind closed doors. Again, I digress.

Speidi were on his show, as he began to school them on the topic of 9/11 Truth, in short, an ever-growing school of thought that has deduced and concluded that the “attacks” on 9/11 were controlled by a tightly-knit network of corporate assholes, corrupt government officials and people with ulterior motives. Folks far and wide, including first-hand eyewitnesses and demolition experts offer their expertise on the matter – and they make a compelling argument. I believe that some fishy shit went down on 9/11, so I can’t call bullshit on these guys. It seems like more fact than fiction. “Just my thoughts… Just what I was feeling at the time… Right or wrong” © Jay-Z

So basically Jones goes on to explain to Speidi the 9/11 theories (reasonable), stories about implanted microchips (nucking futs) and the whole nine. And they’re yucking it up like the air-headed dunces that they are. Alex Jones is proud of himself. He’s gotten America’s darlings to buy into his views. Great. He notes that his website, InfoWars, had received a surge in hits since Speidi went public about their newfound awakening.

The problem is I’m afraid that Alex Jones doesn’t know who he’s dealing with. I don’t know much about Speidi aside from the fact that they seem like the kind of people who will A) do anything for publicity, and B) believe anything you tell them/allow you to put a battery in their back and tell them to “go”. The epitomy of flip-floppers, they seem like the kind of people who would be radical conspiracy theorists one day, and become Republican Party attendees the next day in a snap. In short, they’re opportunists.

I feel I can best explain this with the use of some images. Exhibit A:


That’s Spencer Pratt and his companion, holding a rifle in one hand and a pack of brewskies in the other. That’s the image of red state livin’. Take an even closer look at Spencer’s t-shirt! It says “Palin for VP”. It doesn’t get much more direct than that! It’s also got three images: a cross, a gun and the American flag. Too bad it wasn’t the Confederate flag, or that woulda been the hick trifecta! Below the images it says God, Guns and Glory, respectively. We take from this image that Speidi are the prototypical conservative, Bible-thumping, gun-clutching wingnuts. Fair enough? Okay, let’s move on to Exhibit B:


Here we have an image of Speidi, posing atop their mountain bikes, each wearing pro-Obama apparel. Heidi’s says “Barack’n ‘N Roll’n”. Isn’t that adorable? What can we draw from this image? In my summation, we can gather that Speidi are the prototypical, liberal, pop-culture savvy, physically active/health conscious, hipster/douchebag couple.

A computer trying to decode these paradoxes would have fizzled out by now. Can we now ascertain that these pricks are a pair of opportunists, as I stated before?

(Reader: “Yes”)

I thought so. So… I guess the next question is: Does this make Alex Jones a watered-down sell-out? In other words, maybe, just maybe, Alex Jones, the people’s person, is your regular ol’ revenue-hungry capitalist. It’s just a theory.


* Dedicated to the late, great Karl Malden, ‘cause he would(n’t) have wanted it this way.
* If you wanna get technical, Speidi are simply one fucktard, not two, because they possess the mental aptitude and capacity of only one brain (rounded up, of course).

The Wicked Witch of the Midwest | Politics as Usual

First and foremost: her eyes scare the shit out of me. Now that I’ve gotten that off my chest, let me try to describe to you the maniac that is Michele Bachmann. During last year’s presidential election, she made headlines over her stinging remarks against Barack Obama and his legitimacy. But most strikingly, she called for an “exposé” (how elitist!) on members of congress to determine who was patriotic and who wasn’t.

Pure lunacy.

She ended up winning her reelection in November – a feat that baffles me to this very day – and now she’s back and ready for more. The election of Barack Obama truly must have warped her already twisted mind. Her new beef is that she’s adamantly opposed to the census coming up in 2010 (completed once every decade); (I wonder if she'd be such a worry-wart if McCain had won). Taking “government, stay out of my life”-conservatism beyond the bounds of reason, Bachmann considers the upcoming census as a preparatory act to place people in “camps”. Her words: “That’s how the Japanese were rounded up and put into the internment camps. I’m not saying that’s what the administration is planning to do. But I am saying that private, personal information that was given to the Census Bureau in the 1940s was used against Americans to round them up.” So she’s not sayin’ it. But, you know, she’s... sayin’ it.

As such, Bachmann has proposed that people ignore the census, and abstain from answering the questions. The problem is that this is a crime punishable by a fine of up to $5,000.

But that’s not the only problem – and by problem, I mean hilariously unexpected outcome – that Bachmann could be facing. The census provides the proper information to grant electoral votes to the states. Based on the population numbers and statistics, states are granted a certain number of electoral votes, critical to elections. Imagine if a huge chunk of Bachmann-following conservatives (are they even conservatives at this point) refuse to fill out the census. They’ll be grossly misrepresented. That’s a good thing… for… Democrats! Duh!

But that’s not all. Bachmann’s buffoonery knows no bounds. Her next claim is that the census does not ask its participants whether or not they are U.S. citizens. On Glenn Beck’s show she stated: “You know the question that's not on this survey, Glenn? ‘Are you a U.S. citizen?’ This would be your perfect opportunity to find out how many illegal aliens are in the United States.”

It’s time to do some research!

You see, I checked out the census – you know, just for kicks – and I discovered some important information that Bachmann must have glossed over, with those beady, glossy eyes of hers. The Table of Contents to the “2010 Decennial Census Program” is pretty straightforward. The third portion (section C) of the census notebook lays out the questions for the “American Community Survey”, with questions for “Basic Characteristics”, “Social Characteristics”, “Economic Characteristics”, “Physical Characteristics” and “Financial Characteristics”. Filed under “Social Characteristics”, there is a section which is titled “Place of Birth, Citizenship, and Year of Entry”. Hmm. Bachmann must have missed this one. Turning to page 18 of the notebook, I found the following the questions:

Question #7: Where was this person born?

Question #8: Is this person a citizen of the United States?

Question #9: When did this person come to live in the United States?

Now, let’s quote Bachmann once again: “You know the question that's not on this survey, Glenn? ‘Are you a U.S. citizen?’”

Let me also re-paste question #8 on the survey: Question #8: Is this person a citizen of the United States?

A little bit more research teaches us that questions #7 through #9 have been asked since the 1800's. Really.

“Are you a U.S. citizen?” Is this person a citizen of the United States?” Close enough for me. And all I had to do was press CTRL+F. When will conservatives ever learn?

International Man of Mystery | Politics as Usual

I’ll make this post considerably shorter than the previous one, only because I’ve got less to write on. But I thought it’d be worthwhile to comment on the odd stories that had been percolating and ruminating in the wacky, wonderful world of Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC). What transpired over the weekend has truly been a mystery. Let’s take a brief look at reports we received on Sanford’s whereabouts:

On Thursday, June 18th, a cell phone tower in Atlanta, Georgia picked up a signal from Sanford’s phone. On Friday, Sanford stopped answering his phone completely. On Saturday, the governor’s office issued a statement saying that there was no need for concern. On Sunday, Lieutenant Governor Bauer acknowledged Sanford’s absence. On Monday, all P.R. hell broke loose. Sanford’s wife claimed “he was writing something and wanted some space to get away from the kid.” Keep in mind that this was Father's Day! The governor’s office claimed Sanford was “taking some time away from the office this week to recharge after the stimulus battle.” The Lieutenant Governor claimed to have spoken to Sanford. Sanford’s spokesman Joel Sawyer denied these claims. Bauer oddly retracted the statement. The governor’s office issued a statement claiming that Sanford was “hiking on the Appalachian trail” (for four days?!!?). On Tuesday, Sanford called in to his office, stating that he’ll get back to work on Wednesday (today). The governor’s office still stood by the Appalachian trail story at the time. At the end of the day, Sanford’s automobile was tracked down to the location of the Columbia Metropolitan Airport in South Carolina. Early Wednesday morning, Sanford arrived at Hartsfield-Jackson Airport in Atlanta via Buenos Aires, Argentina (my homecity/hometown).

First of all: what the fuck?

Why would the governor’s office need to lie? Above all, why would they fabricate such a preposterously suspect lie? Who goes hiking for over half a week? Why did the governor feel the need to secretly run off to Argentina? What was he doing there? Why didn’t he tell anyone he was going there? Why did he assume that no one would wonder where he was?

It all seems very, very fishy to me.

To top it all off, Argentina’s legislative elections will be held this coming Sunday. I’m not pointing any fingers. Yet. But I am raising my eyebrows. After it's all said and done, maybe he was just flying down to ARG to get some tail.

Update: Turns out Sanford was trying to get some tail, just as I had foreseen. They (still) don't call me the prophet for nothin'! Heh.

Iran So Far Away | Politics as Usual

I don’t need to talk about what’s going on in Iran right now, mainly because I respect my readership enough to assume that they aren’t so dimwitted to still not be in the know. Instead, I’d like to comment on the political landscape of this country in the wake of Iran’s so-called election. Let it be known that although I consider myself a democratic socialist (shocker, I know), I am not close-minded to the ideas and arguments of all conservatives. I read the writings of op-ed columnists like Andrew Sullivan, George Will, Kathleen Parker, David Brooks and the like. These are smart people. Others, like Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Dennis Prager and their ilk, are smart too. But they’re also dumbasses. And douche nozzles. When it comes to elected officials, it’s a bit more black and white. Most elected Republicans are Grade A nimrods, placed in their positions of power by Bible-thumping, Darwin-bashing yokels. Generally speaking, that is. Just sayin'. And I’m just introducing to you my standards of acceptability towards opinionated conservatives. And with that, I’d like to express my justification for this standard by pointing out some of the highlights of the week.

During the past week or so, a whole gang of Republicans – gang could not find a more suitable synonym at the moment – trounced on Obama’s stance on what’s going on in Iran. He’s not doing enough, they said! He’s appearing weak, they said! Looking back, I’d like to once again point out the ineptitudes of Republicans, exposing their petty, hypocritical, and downright idiotic fits over the Iranian “election”.

Mitt Throws a Fit

Two Sundays ago, two days after the Iranian “election” took place, ex-governor and Presidential nominee/loser Mitt Romney was on ABC’s “This Week” to discuss the results. As he put it, “what has occurred is the election is a fraud.” Right on, Mitt, I couldn’t agree with you anymore. But wait! Mittens had more: “It’s very clear that the president’s policies of going around the world and apologizing for America aren’t working. … Look, just sweet talk and criticizing America is not going to enhance freedom in the world.” In other words, the Mittster blamed Iran’s election fraud on Barack Obama. Yeah, because clearly Obama’s well-received speech in Egypt wasn’t enough to stop Iranian officials from rigging their own elections. Yeah, that makes sense. Moving on…

The World, Fleischer and the Devil

Kudos if you caught that film title reference. In an e-mail to Washington Post writer Glenn Kessler, Ari Fleischer, the former press secretary for George W.A.R. Bush, suggested that the yearning for democracy in Iran can be accredited to one man: George Bush! His exact words were as follows: “Bush’s tough policies have helped give rise to the reformists and I think we’re witnessing that today”. He went on to add: “I think it’s fair to say the George Bush’s Freedom Agenda planted seeds that have started to grow in the Middle East”. In my opinion, it’s fair to say that not only is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the Iranian equivalent to George Bush himself, but that Bush’s war with Iraq single-handedly facilitated an environment in which Ahmadinejad could rise to power. This scenario ultimately led to the Iranian people’s choice to revolt against Ahmadinejad as we are clearly seeing now. So in a way, Ari Fleischer is actually correct. Only George Bush’s incompetent, anti-diplomatic Middle Eastern foreign policy could have could have created a monster the Iranian people would want to rid themselves of in favor of a more progressive candidate. Kinda like what we did here in the U.S., opting for Barack!

Well done, Georgie! In fact, I’m surprised that Mitt Romney, clearly a man who possesses flawless logic, didn’t blame George Bush for Ahmadinejad’s first presidential victory. After all, Ahmadinejad became Iran’s president in 2005 – when Bush was still in office. I take back the praise, George. Yes, even the sarcastic praise.

The Martyr Complex: Republican Tweets and Treats

There’s a new website out called Pete Hoekstra is a Meme. The idea for the site came about soon after Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) tweeted this gem: “Iranian twitter activity similar to what we did in House last year when Republicans were shut down in the House.” Since then, the site has garnered much attention for mocking Hoekstra’s unbalanced comparisons. A few examples include “My toilet just overflowed a little. Now I know how the Indonesian tsunami victims felt” and “The lack of choice in the Congressional cafeteria is just like being in Auschwitz” sent in via The Daily Show. Unsurprisingly, Rep. John Culberson (R-TX) chimed in with Hoekstra, claiming that Republicans are an “oppressed minority” just like the Iranian people. Unsurprisingly (again), television and radio host Glenn Beck shared this tidbit of evaluation: “I look at what’s happening in Iran … I think we’re in the same situation here”. What a sad, sad little man…

Charles Krauthammer: The Supreme Leader of Hypocrisy

Put aside the fact that Krauthammer kind of looks like Big Bird from Sesame Street; one of the smuggest bastards you’ll ever see on television, Krauthammer is a certified, bonafide d-bag. This past Friday, he wrote an op-ed piece in which he criticized Barack Obama for referring to Khamenei (you know, the Supreme Leader of Iran) as the Supreme Leader of Iran. A wordsmith like no other, Krauthammer bashed Obama with pretentious penmanship: “Note the abject solicitousness with which the American president confers this honorific on a clerical dictator who, even as his minions attack demonstrators, offers to examine some returns in some electoral districts -- a farcical fix that will do nothing to alter the fraudulence of the election.” Blah. I think someone needs to take a look at George Orwell's Rules for Writers.

I wouldn’t have made such a big deal over this had Krauthammer not called Khamenei the Supreme Leader of Iran both before and after Barack Obama said it! That’s right! On Fox News’ June 14th “Special Report With Bret Baier”, Krauthammer referred to Khamanei as (you guessed it!) the “Supreme Leader”. I believe the exact quote was “Khamenei, the supreme leader, remains in charge.” Then on June 22nd, days after Krauthammer’s previously mentioned op-ed piece was written and published, he appeared on Dennis Miller’s radio show, again referring to the ayatollah as the “Supreme Leader”. I’m nice with the quotes, so here we go: “There’s no way he’s going to sweet talk, you know, the Supreme Leader out of his nukes.” Do Republicans have no sense of yesterday, today, tomorrow? Or do they simply lie for the sake of lying? To make matters worse (and by worse, I mean funnier), John McCain, appearing on Fox News (go figure), referred to Khamenei as the “Supreme Leader” on the same day that Krauthammer’s op-ed piece was published. Will Krauthammer’s next article attack McCain (and himself) as harshly as he originally attacked the President? I doubt it.

McCain in the Membrane

To cap it all off, let’s look back for a moment. Remember that time when not-President John McCain sang that popular Beach Boys song “Barbara Ann”, except he replaced the chorus with “bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran”. Good times… I’d think it’d be best that he kept his mouth shut on what yes-President Barack Obama should do about Iran. Don’t you? ‘nuff said.

Keep doing what you’re doing, Republicans. It’s only helping our cause.