November 19, 2010

See what happens when you sleep through Media Law 101?

You get pantload everywhere:


Why do I get the feeling that the above is actually Ezra Levant's grade-school days coming back to haunt?

(Image shamelessly stolen from Law is Cool.)

September 7, 2010

Good luck with that tour, Alejandro...

...because something tells me you're gonna need it, if this is any indication of the reception you're bound to get in Venezuela:


Basically, the mediocre Spanish singer is asking Chavecito for permission to enter Venezuela. (You may recall that he got a shirt from a fan reading "Chávez Sucks", not so long ago. And he was not at all shy of waving it around like a flag.)

Well, Luigino Bracci, who blogs here, took exception to that and cordially invited Sanz to stuff a hot potato down his pants. (Or words to that effect. How many people north of the Río Grande eat yucca, anyway?)

And he's far from alone in that sentiment; other Venezuelan tweeters were equally vocal, and they got retweeted over and over and over again. Given that the Venezuelan twittersphere has gone rojo rojito since Chavecito got on the tweeter, that's a lot of pissed-off little birdies who think Sanz sucks.

Alejandro Sanz might want to purchase a pair of kneepads, if he doesn't already own any. He's got a LOT of grovelling ahead of him. And I do hope he likes the taste of mierda, because he's gonna be eating it three squares a day.

EDIT, Wednesday the 8th @ 5:47 PM: Ha, ha...look who I scooped. I had this post up two days ago.

August 18, 2010

Bet this never happened to the REAL Judy Garland


This should happen more often, though...because it shows the wingnuts in their true colors:

A few months ago, right wing firebrand Ann Coulter reacted to words of advice from a Canadian University official with stringent claims that she was being silenced and was the victim of a "hate crime." But how will Coulter respond now that her own fellow conservatives have dumped her from a "Taking Back America" conference for agreeing to speak her piece at a gay conservative group's event?

Anti-gay religious news site WorldNetDaily announced in an Aug. 17 article that Coulter had been disinvited from the WND event, which is slated to take place on Sept. 17, because Coulter has accepted an offer to speak at Homocon, an event scheduled for Sept. 25 that is sponsored by conservative gay group GoProud. Coulter had previously been scheduled to appear as a keynote speaker at WND's "Taking Back America" event, but that invitation was rescinded by WND.

WorldNetDaily describes its "Taking Back America" conference as being "about freedom, the freedom the founding generation of leaders fought for in establishing the United States." By "freedom," WND seemed to mean a legal curtailing individual choices, based on a specific notion of morality: "It is time to choose the kind of country in which we want to live--whether we want to live under the rule of law or under the rule of man," text at the WND site read.

"The choice is simple: the world of standards and morality, self-government and accountability to God or the world of tyranny and ever-changing moral codes enforced by government," continued the text. "The only way we can reestablish our freedom--our God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--is to break the hammerlock of statism and the notion that moral relativism holds the answers to ordering people's passions and behavior." The text did not indicate what agency, if not government, would enforce this brand of freedom.

Ha, ha...who's the REAL freedom-of-speech party again? Big hint: it's NOT over there on the right.

And check this out. I always thought that being a far-right "libertarian" capitalist meant that you could literally do anything for a buck. Well, maybe not:

WND condemned GoProud's sponsorship of a conservative conference earlier this year, and the site's editor and CEO, Joseph Farah, said that dropping Coulter was the only thing to do given that she was, he suggested, lending credibility to the gay conservative group.

"Ultimately, as a matter of principle, it would not make sense for us to have Ann speak to a conference about 'taking America back' when she clearly does not recognize that the ideals to be espoused there simply do not include the radical and very 'unconservative' agenda represented by GOProud," Farah told his own news site.

"Earlier this year, GOProud was permitted to sponsor the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, the biggest event of its kind," Farah noted, going on to recall that various anti-gay groups dropped out of the conference rather than attend an event that had been partially underwritten by a gay organization. "GOProud is about infiltration of the conservative movement and dividing it from within with twisted and dangerous ideas way out of the mainstream of American public opinion," Farah continued. "Ann Coulter is, I'm afraid, validating this effort for money."

"Validating this effort for money"--I thought that was supposed to be GOOD, at least to those guys. I guess it's not good when those guys are GAY. And even a flippant 'phobe like the Coultergeist gets her convictions tied in more knots than her panties.

Speaking of knots, how's this for tortured logic?

The article stated that Coulter would be welcome to continue as an op-ed writer for the site, and Farah drew a distinction between allowing people of differing political views to publish at WND and allowing people who speak to other groups to speak also at a WND event. "There is simply no room there for compromisers or for people who accept money from those determined to destroy the moral fabric required for self-governance and liberty," said Farah of the event's roster of speakers.

Shorter Farah: We'll still pay you to spout crap on WingNutDaily because we could sure use the eyeballs, but it has to be OUR uptight, conservative brand of crap. But we can't let you bring those gaywad cooties to our conferences. Freedom isn't free, y'know.

And how's this for a bitchy widdle slap-fest?

To Coulter, Farah directed pointed questions about her appearance at GoProud's Homocon event. "Do you not understand you are legitimizing a group that is fighting for same-sex marriage and open homosexuality in the military--not to mention the idea that sodomy is just an alternate lifestyle?" Farah asked.

"That's silly," Coulter rejoined, going on to tell Farah, "I speak to a lot of groups and do not endorse them. I speak at Harvard and I certainly don't endorse their views. I've spoken to Democratic groups and liberal Republican groups that loooove abortion.

"The main thing I do is speak on college campuses, which is about the equivalent of speaking at an al-Qaida conference," Coulter continued. "I'm sure I agree with GOProud more than I do with at least half of my college audiences. But in any event, giving a speech is not an endorsement of every position held by the people I'm speaking to. I was going to speak for you guys, [even though] I think you're nuts on the birther thing (though I like you otherwise!)."

Shorter Coultergeist: You're nuts, but I like you. And I give speeches for al-Qaida. Yeah, I'm nuts too. But those crazy faggots like me!

And speaking of nuts:

Coulter's response to Farah was markedly different from the thrashing she gave last March to University of Ottawa's provost for what Coulter characterized as his attempt to "silence" her by cautioning Coulter about the legal differences in what is considered to be hate speech in Canada, as opposed to the U.S.

"Since arriving in Canada I've been accused of thought crimes, threatened with criminal prosecution for speeches I hadn't yet given and denounced on the floor of the Parliament (which was nice because that one was on my 'bucket list')," Coulter wrote in a March 24 column at Conservative News. "Apparently Canadian law forbids 'promoting hatred against any identifiable group,' which the provost, Francois A. Houle advised me, 'would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges.'

"I was given no specific examples of what words and phrases I couldn't use," Coulter continued, "but I take it I'm not supposed to say, 'F----you, Francois.' " Coulter went on to declare herself the victim of a hate crime due to Houle's note. In the event, Coulter's appearance had to be canceled due to safety concerns when a mob of students--described by Coulter as "rioting liberals"--became increasingly unruly before Coulter's speech.

I can't believe this bullshit version of the story is still circulating out there. Once more, with feeling: The Coultergeist was too busy boozing it up at a pricey fundraiser. Of course she couldn't be bothered to show for a FREE appearance. She thinks independent-thinking, leftist students are Randian "looters" for al-Qaida, remember? Plus, she had to make herself out to be the martyr, after all, and we nasty-wasty Canadians weren't obliging her with any serious reasons. She was not forced to cancel anything--she CHOSE to. And saps that we are, we supported her right to choose, even if it meant that she could open her big yap and accuse us of all sorts of horrible things that we did not and never would do!

But the most tortured bit of logic is this, at the end:

Homocon has drawn sponsors from the rightward end of the political spectrum, noted Christopher Taylor in an Aug. 17 op-ed piece at the Washington Examiner. Taylor questioned the purpose of Homocon and GoProud, promoting a version of conservatism that the rightward fringe might not have recognized. "One of the most basic principles of conservatism as opposed to the modern left is that we treat everyone as Americans in America, not as any form of hyphenated-American," wrote Taylor. "Conservatives shouldn't care what color you are, how tall you are, if you're male or female, they don't care if you are left handed or ambidextrous, it simply doesn't matter."

Taylor went on to write, "Having a Homocon for gay conservatives is a slouch toward this identity group-politics, where we focus on the ideas and interests of each specific specially split off group, as if you can really take human beings and jam them into little boxes of like-minded and like-cultured people."

For gay conservatives, the principle values of conservatism still apply--a catalogue, as defined by Taylor, that includes "limited government, individual responsibility, love of liberty, suspicion of government power, free market capitalism, and equal justice," all of which conservative gay rights proponents say dovetail with GLBT equality.

It's always so funny to see concepts like "limited government" and "suspicion of government power" touted by the same people who voted for Dubya, he of the warrantless wiretap, the search-and-seizure, the spying on dissident groups, the Free Speech Zones, and all those other things that we don't have up here in the Great Unconservative North (or didn't, until Harpo decided to emulate his crushboy).

And since when do conservatives REALLY not care what color you are, or if you're female, or what? They are the MOST discrimination-prone people on the planet! Of course they care. If they didn't, they wouldn't be so blatantly racist in their protests against Barack Obama. Nor would they elect a single anti-choicer. Black people would not still be agitating for their rights, nor would women, nor would queerfolks, in a country that blats loud and long about liberty but is really bristling with laws and statutes and state constitutional amendments and oh yeah, "free markets" geared at taking it all away.

Maybe what these homo-contards really mean is that everyone should be equally repressed and discriminated against, albeit in different ways, but turn themselves inside out trying pretend they're really, truly equal and that nothing's wrong. That's conservofascism as I understand it.

Good thing I'm a socialist and don't have to tie my brain in so many knots. I believe in struggling for equal rights and freedoms for everyone--no exceptions--until you get 'em, for holding politicians accountable in order to hang onto 'em, for being free and able to seek redress for governmental and corporate violations of those rights, for redistribution of wealth (hey, it enables a LOT more freedoms than it inhibits!), and for keeping the environment clean--and that includes kicking the dirty-minded conservatives out of the bedrooms of the nation. My ideology is clear, straightforward and just plain makes sense, which is more than I can say for theirs.

July 5, 2010

Cry me a river, Pepe Lobo!



Knock 'er down and scalp 'er!

Up hers! H' and your ass!

Nobody will halp 'er!"

--from The Sheep Look Up, by John Brunner. Sung to the tune of "Goosey Goosey Gander".

Well, well, well. What have we here? Democracy NOT "restored" in Honduras after all?

A year after the coup that ousted Manuel Zelaya, the new Honduran president warns some want him to be next.

Porfirio Lobo says he is the target of a new plot by some of the same wealthy businessmen who supported Zelaya's removal.

Himself a wealthy rancher who supported the coup, Lobo surprised his own political party when he denounced the conspiracy, warning: "I know who you all are."

The claim -- made less than a month before Monday's first anniversary of the coup -- laid bare the lingering instability of a desperately poor country where a few prosperous families call the shots.


The violence -- and Lobo's allegations of a coup conspiracy -- threaten to undermine the message the president has spent months selling to the world: that Honduras is a thriving democracy and should be welcomed back into the Organization of American States, which suspended the Central American country after the June 28, 2009 coup.

Oh, cry me a river, Pepe. You and your Yankee bosses know full well that democracy was not restored when you were "elected". You knew it at the time of your farcical "election". Which you would not have won if REAL democracy had existed in Honduras. Well, you had democracy once, but you eated it. You might have had it, if you'd let Mel Zelaya finish out his mandate and hold the Fourth Ballot, the one that would have convoked a constituent assembly to rewrite the Honduran Constitution--this time on DEMOCRATIC lines. But noooo, you had to have your little banana putsch. You had to have the military bundle Mel onto a plane in the dead of night, in his pajamas. And since you're stuck with the OLD constitution, the one written by the generals during the dictatorial 1980s, you're fucked. Suck it up, cupcake--you're not popular, and you're not even really president.

I wonder if that Facebook troll (undoubtedly from Washington, DC) who lamely tried to tell me What Hondurans Really Want is reading this. If you are, "Liberty Heights", take a good goosey gander at this. There's your "democracy". Go live in it, and may a drug gang or some other assassin give your brainless antidemocratic existence the ending it deserves.

June 1, 2010

Paging Dr. Darwin...paging Dr. Charles Darwin...


This is the safest way to carry a gun in your pants, guys. It's only a tattoo.

We have an admission for Sudden Gene Pool Exit, incoming...

A man accidentally shot himself in the testicles at Lowe's Home Improvement store in Lynnwood Sunday afternoon, police said.

The man's handgun, which was in the waistband of his pants, went off at about 12:30 p.m. -- an apparent "accidental discharge," according to Shannon Sessions, a Lynnwood police spokeswoman.

"It made a loud noise and scared a lot of people in the store," Sessions said. "I believe he shot himself in the testicles and he also had some injuries to his leg and foot. He was obviously in shock."

Nobody else was hurt and no one appeared to be with the man, she said.

Police and fire responded, and the man was rushed to Harborview Medical Center in Seattle before police had a chance to interview him extensively. Sessions had no further details about the man.

And this, gunboys, is why you don't get so blatant about your penis-compensation issues. You end up not only curing your own testosterone poisoning the hard way, you also blow any chances of producing more stupid gits like yourself. Also, you make yourself look like a real fucking idiot in that other bastion of masculinity--the hardware store.

Any questions?

May 28, 2010

BP, learn from Venezuela!


This is how you run an oil company responsibly, people...

The US subsidiary of Petróleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), CITGO, has received seven awards for its contributions in safety and environmental protection from the National Association of Petrochemical Refiners at its national conference.

"These awards demonstrate once more our commitment to industrial safety and environmental leadership, in line with the principles of PDVSA, the state oil company of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, which promotes environmental protection and is improving the quality of life for communities, said CITGO president Alejandro Granado.

The PDVSA subsidiary received, among other awards, two for safety, recognizing its facilities for operating a million or more hours without any lost workdays or serious worker accidents during 2009.

CITGO refineries operate in Lake Charles, Louisiana; Corpus Christi, Texas; and Lemont, Illinois. They refine 749,000 barrels of crude per day.

Translation mine.

Granted this is just refineries. But it's part of PDVSA's across-the-board commitment: people and environment first, profits later. (And they're not doing at all shabbily in that latter department, either. No oil company is.)

Guess all the CITGO boycotters should be feeling good and foolish right about now, seeing their crapitalist darlings imploding all around them while Venezuela and its state company go right on thriving...AND winning awards, too.

May 24, 2010

Yes, Israel has nukes. Yes, it's an apartheid state. And no, it has no shame.

Surprising revelations, surprisingly revealed by the UK Guardian:

Secret South African documents reveal that Israel offered to sell nuclear warheads to the apartheid regime, providing the first official documentary evidence of the state's possession of nuclear weapons.

The "top secret" minutes of meetings between senior officials from the two countries in 1975 show that South Africa's defence minister, PW Botha, asked for the warheads and Shimon Peres, then Israel's defence minister and now its president, responded by offering them "in three sizes". The two men also signed a broad-ranging agreement governing military ties between the two countries that included a clause declaring that "the very existence of this agreement" was to remain secret.

The documents, uncovered by an American academic, Sasha Polakow-Suransky, in research for a book on the close relationship between the two countries, provide evidence that Israel has nuclear weapons despite its policy of "ambiguity" in neither confirming nor denying their existence.

The Israeli authorities tried to stop South Africa's post-apartheid government declassifying the documents at Polakow-Suransky's request and the revelations will be an embarrassment, particularly as this week's nuclear non-proliferation talks in New York focus on the Middle East.

They will also undermine Israel's attempts to suggest that, if it has nuclear weapons, it is a "responsible" power that would not misuse them, whereas countries such as Iran cannot be trusted.

I predict that Professor Polakow-Suransky will be getting a lot of hate mail. Truth-tellers often do. Just look what happened to Mordechai Vanunu, who revealed the truth two decades ago. He got taken back to jail today, in an instance of very convenient timing. No doubt he'll be duly silenced as part of the conditions of his latest incarceration. But it won't do any good; the cat is already out of the bag (even the Federation of American Scientists is aware of the Israeli nuke program), and the Guardian report only confirms what's already long been known:

South African documents show that the apartheid-era military wanted the missiles as a deterrent and for potential strikes against neighbouring states.

The documents show both sides met on 31 March 1975. Polakow-Suransky writes in his book published in the US this week, The Unspoken Alliance: Israel's secret alliance with apartheid South Africa. At the talks Israeli officials "formally offered to sell South Africa some of the nuclear-capable Jericho missiles in its arsenal".

Among those attending the meeting was the South African military chief of staff, Lieutenant General RF Armstrong. He immediately drew up a memo in which he laid out the benefits of South Africa obtaining the Jericho missiles but only if they were fitted with nuclear weapons.

The memo, marked "top secret" and dated the same day as the meeting with the Israelis, has previously been revealed but its context was not fully understood because it was not known to be directly linked to the Israeli offer on the same day and that it was the basis for a direct request to Israel. In it, Armstrong writes: "In considering the merits of a weapon system such as the one being offered, certain assumptions have been made: a) That the missiles will be armed with nuclear warheads manufactured in RSA (Republic of South Africa) or acquired elsewhere."

But South Africa was years from being able to build atomic weapons. A little more than two months later, on 4 June, Peres and Botha met in Zurich. By then the Jericho project had the codename Chalet.

The top secret minutes of the meeting record that: "Minister Botha expressed interest in a limited number of units of Chalet subject to the correct payload being available." The document then records: "Minister Peres said the correct payload was available in three sizes. Minister Botha expressed his appreciation and said that he would ask for advice." The "three sizes" are believed to refer to the conventional, chemical and nuclear weapons.

The use of a euphemism, the "correct payload", reflects Israeli sensitivity over the nuclear issue and would not have been used had it been referring to conventional weapons. It can also only have meant nuclear warheads as Armstrong's memorandum makes clear South Africa was interested in the Jericho missiles solely as a means of delivering nuclear weapons.

In addition, the only payload the South Africans would have needed to obtain from Israel was nuclear. The South Africans were capable of putting together other warheads.

Botha did not go ahead with the deal in part because of the cost. In addition, any deal would have to have had final approval by Israel's prime minister and it is uncertain it would have been forthcoming.

South Africa eventually built its own nuclear bombs, albeit possibly with Israeli assistance. But the collaboration on military technology only grew over the following years. South Africa also provided much of the yellowcake uranium that Israel required to develop its weapons.

Emphasis added.

Looks like those two seemingly strange bedfellows are not so unlikely a pair after all. They were scratching each other's backs rather nicely. Apartheid South Africa providing yellowcake uranium so Apartheid Israel could supply warheads. It stands to reason that they would have such a dandy reciprocal relationship: Israel was (and still is) cracking down on its internal Arab population, trying to starve it out; South Africa did the same to its blacks. Israel wields the nuclear menace over its Arab neighbors; South Africa was hoping to do the same with its black neighbors. The two are far more similar than they are different when it comes to both domestic and foreign policy.

And of course, there's always this:


Ceci n'est pas un mur d'apartheid. Ceci n'est pas un grand prison.

And if you believe that's not an apartheid wall, enclosing the world's largest existing prison camp, I've got some lovely oceanfront property in Saskatchewan that I'll sell you for a song.

PS to all the hasbara trolls writing me from the safety of London, England and other places totally out of touch with reality:


Take note that anything you try to spam here, including false "facts" and charmingly futile death wishes for me, will be deleted and reported to your ISP, so that you will learn not to abuse your online privileges in future. Good day, and get fucked.

May 9, 2010

Happy Birth Control Pill Day!


Courtesy of the New York Times, something that isn't whorish, for a change. Gail Collins writes:

This is by way of saying that on Sunday we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the birth control pill. We live in troubled times. [...]

Like a great many of our anniversaries, this one is a movable feast. The Food and Drug Administration actually gave G.D. Searle the go-ahead to market the first oral contraceptive (not counting bees) on June 23, 1960. But the F.D.A. announced its intention to approve the pill on May 9, which also happens to be Mother's Day this year and, therefore, too good to resist.

I can hear all the fundies screeching already. How can one celebrate, on holy, sacred Mother's Day of all days, a pill that made motherhood merely optional, rather than de rigueur as it had been until then? Sacrilege!

Well, I guess the fundies have their piddling little right to be shocked, shocked! that the pesky thing that's been keeping them from filling their quivers is now fifty years old and still showing no signs of dying. They also have a perfect right not to use it themselves. But they have no right to deny it to others.

And there are plenty of others. Women have been trying to avoid compulsory motherhood, and to plan when and if they had children, since time immemorial. Birth control has saved women's lives, and by limiting family size (meaning more food to divide among fewer mouths), has done wonders for the lives and well-being of children, too. Malthus knew it, and had the temerity to say so. Even in the prissy, motherhood-glorifying Victorian era, birth control was a subterranean industry of remarkable proportions:

American women had been limiting the size of their families long before the pill came along. In the 19th century, the fertility rate was plummeting, and ads for everything from condoms to douching syringes helped keep urban newspapers solvent. My favorite factoid from this period is that a company called National Syringe offered a model with changeable nozzles so it could be used for both birth control and watering plants.

Fertility (for plants) and infertility (for the women who tend the plants) in one device! O, the irony.

But wait, it gets even better--and more deliciously ironic:

The powers-that-be believed that the only appropriate form of birth control was celibacy. "Can they not use self control?" demanded Anthony Comstock, the powerful crusader for the Sexual Purity campaign. "Or must they sink to the level of the beasts?"

Comstock managed to get New York authorities to grant him the powers to both arrest and censor, and he bragged that he sent 4,000 people to jail for helping women understand, and use, birth control. He seemed to take particular pleasure in the fact that 15 of them had committed suicide.

One of his targets was Margaret Sanger, a nurse who wrote a sex education column, "What Every Girl Should Know," for a left-wing New York newspaper, The Call. When Comstock banned her column on venereal disease, the paper ran an empty space with the title: "What Every Girl Should Know: Nothing, by Order of the U.S. Post Office."

Sanger was the first person to publish an evaluation of all the available forms of birth control. As a reward, she got a criminal obscenity charge. She fled to Europe to avoid going to jail, and her husband was imprisoned for passing out one of her pamphlets. In the end, he got 30 days, and Anthony Comstock got a chill during the trial that led to a fatal case of pneumonia.

Ha, ha. Pardon me if I don't have even a crocodile tear to shed for the blessed Anthony of Comstock, the martyred patron saint of sex-hatred and censorship. The man who tried to put a chill on women's efforts to limit their family size without celibacy, dead of a chill himself in the glorious golden age Before Penicillin! Too bad there was no pill to save him. One wonders if he'd have been as zealous about trying to stop research and information regarding antibiotics as he was when it came to contraception.

And here's another irony: it's "the level of the beasts" at which you find sex for procreation only. Humans are the among the few animals who don't have an estrus cycle. Meaning, we can have sex at any time, fertile or not. For us, it must therefore serve a purpose, or several purposes, not linked to reproduction. So Comstock was a bad scientist, among all else. There was no Jane Goodall yet to set him straight.

But Margaret Sanger outlived him, and persisted, and today we have her to thank. I thank her, in particular, for the fact that my period, which had gone haywire after an accident, could be made regular again. And for the fact that I bypassed fertility altogether during the so-called peak of my fertile years (which felt like a nadir to me), and was able to get my tubes tied without incident afterward. My own dear mother had six kids, and used birth control to make sure they did not become a dozen or two (or more, Bog help us all).

So even large families can give some thanks to the early advocates of family planning that they're not larger--or living in a house with its own graveyard of lost babies, as was commonplace not so long ago. In Canada, we know the value of our birth control, and we like it...and those of us who know and like it best, thank that true saint from just to the south of us for doing her time in martyrdom so that we could all be free. Blessed be the name of Margaret Sanger!

Meanwhile, just to the south of us, there's still a war a-waging:

And we lived happily ever after. Except that over the last 20 years, protests from the social right have made politicians frightened of mentioning birth control and school boards frightened of including it in the curriculum.

Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, remembers getting a pretty thorough grounding in sex and the ways to prevent pregnancy when she was in school -- back in the days when the raciest thing you saw on television was Rob and Laura Petrie waking up in twin beds on the opposite side of the room. "Kids growing up today watch 'Gossip Girl' and all these shows where every teenager is having sex every day -- and now we don't teach sex education in school," she noted.

Even though 100 million women take the pill every day, to the great relief of 100 million or so of their partners, the terror of mentioning birth control is so great that the humongous new health care reform act has managed to avoid bringing it up at all. Advocates are hoping that when the regulations are finally written, they will require health insurance to cover birth control pills like any other drug. But nobody is sure.

"If the administration would announce tomorrow that all birth control would be free for every woman in America, I think the health care plan would gain 30 points in popularity overnight," said Richards.

And the teabaggers and fundies would be out of a job, out of office, out of all real power. Now THAT would be something to celebrate.

Well, maybe if they could learn to stop protecting the drivel of the local Nazis and concentrate instead on protecting and promoting the REAL freedom of speech--the freedom to teach birth control, among other counter-oppressive things--they might just get something accomplished there. Then kids would learn the facts of life straight and undiluted from real teachers, not trashy TV shows...or precocious friends behind the bike sheds...or the hard way, as their parents, grandparents and great-grandparents often had to.

Let us pray...

May 4, 2010

Stupid Sex Tricks/Headline Howler: Gee, that's an OLD rentboy!


Actually, that nasty old man on Mrs. Betty Bowers' Facebook page is none other than Luis Posada Carriles, alias the CubanaBomber...the worst terrorist in Cuban history, and a dark chapter for Venezuela as well, since he was once a leading torturer in the DISIP.

But in his own way, he certainly IS a prostitute. Just ask the CIA!

(And if you're wondering about the actual rentboy thing, here you go.)

Headline Howler: Look what happens when you lay off newspaper staff...

You get PENIS everywhere:


And it will serve you damn well right.

April 22, 2010

Teabonics: The Video

An illustrated lexicon of hardcore stupidity. Enjoy!

April 8, 2010

Short 'n' Stubby: Leftist Authoritarian Bitches-R-Us


Yes, kiddies, Ms. Manx is back. Fear the Manx! For she brings you glad tidings of great joy, at least for us leftists. For you rightards out there (particularly the name-calling projectionist trolls from across the pond), well, not so much...

First off, a cannon blast from Keith Olbermann and John Dean. Dean uncovered some startling, long-forgotten findings in researching his latest book, and it bodes ill for those who call me a "leftist authoritarian bitch". 1% of the left is an awfully small number, and I'm not in it.

Next up, the lies of the right get unmasked by the News Corpse. What? FUX Snooze isn't popular? They lied even to the Nielsen ratings people? You don't say. Well, they certainly wouldn't, being rightard obscurantists and all. But I'll say it, because I believe in REAL freedom of speech! We leftist authoritarian bitches are funny that way.

Then, Candace Gingrich neatly dissects how right-wing authoritarianism works in schools, enabling bullies to exclude queer and disabled kids from their precious toy proms, and also to hound an innocent immigrant to death. And of course, Candace would know about right-wing authoritarians and their sneaky ways of playing hell; her brother, Newt, was the one who formulated that infamous "word list" that was geared directly at undermining the left. Happily, she is his polar opposite both personally and politically. Which is why she's lined up on the side of free speech, too, in exposing how insidious deceptions work.

And while we're on the subject of bullies, insidious deceptions, and the use of free speech to unmask the truth, please read this excellent piece by my fellow Canadian, Josh Frappier. And then spread it far and wide. It deserves to go viral. Let's roll!

Nations can be bullies, too, as Norman Finkelstein points out in this worthwhile longer piece at Alternet. It's an excerpt from his latest book, and dovetails nicely with the whole theme of right-wing authoritarianism, lying and obfuscation I've got going on here.

And does anyone seriously buy Glenn Beck's "I'm just an entertainer" schtick? And where have we heard all that before? From the Coultergeist, who seriously believes her own smack? From the Pigman, whose "entertainment" is all strictly political and authoritarian in nature (his followers are called dittoheads after all!) If these people are really just entertainers, and their shit is really just meant to be funny, then don't put them on the news. Don't clutter up the talk shows with them. Give them their own SCTV-style sketch-comedy show, and watch 'em tank. And then pull the plug, and never let us hear from them again. We have better things to do with the concept of free speech, and time's a-wastin'.

And finally, isn't it funny how the Randroids all claim to be libertarians when their beloved prophet-idiotess was anything but? Sorry, people, but "right-wing" and "libertarian" are opposing terms that cancel each other out. Ditto "left-wing" and "authoritarian", as John Dean found out to his utter surprise (see my first link again, if you don't believe me.) People who worship sociopaths who in turn worshipped psychopaths are NOT libertarian by any stretch of the imagination.

Right-wing nuts, you are hereby my bitches. You may now kneel down, hands behind your back, and lick my boots. I won't compel you, of course, as I'm terribly "authoritarian" that way.

April 6, 2010

Cruelty, the uncoolest cut of all

First, a little music to set the mood...

...because I'm really going to try for rationality and detachment here. It's not gonna be easy, because everything about this just triggers the old blue blaze of rage and pain that I felt as an ostracized, bullied child. Every time I got shut out or picked on, that blaze is what I felt. And I don't like admitting that I still feel it every time I see someone else get shut out and/or picked on. You're supposed to get over that old kid stuff, you know?

Only, here's the sad part: You don't. You really don't. And if you're honest with yourself, you admit it.

And if you're really REALLY honest, and painfully so, you admit that this shit goes on everywhere.

Okay, I admit it: This shit goes on everywhere. It goes on in supposedly liberal, enlightened, democratic-socialist CANADA, for God's sake. I know, because it happened to me.

And no, it didn't happen for the same reason as it happened to Constance McMillen. I'm not gay. I didn't have a prom date at all (at least not for MY high school's formal), much less one of my own sex. I was a shy, introverted, bespectacled, skinny, pale, redheaded, frizzy-haired, unathletic, unhip, unhot, too-damn-smart-for-my-own-good geek. And in a small town, where the narrowest definition of "cool" prevails, someone like that stands out. And standing out is unforgivable. The nail that sticks out, gets hammered down. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

And yeah, I got hammered. All through grade school and much of high school, I got fucking hammered.

I won't go into any specific incidents. I've already been triggered enough for one damn day. There are more of them than can be named, anyway, and it made going to school nauseating. And this was for a kid who enjoyed classes. A kid who really wanted to be a doctor someday; a kid whose teachers kept telling her she really ought to be a writer. Being seen enjoying the use of your own brains is apparently utterly unforgivable in a place where conformist mediocrity is prized, other than of course in athletics.

So I got hammered. And I continued to stick out anyway. I bent, but would not be hammered down. I tried to hide my brains: useless. (I still got high 90s in French without even trying. I could have slept through that class and still aced every test.) I tortured my hair with a curling iron, to straighten and feather it into some semblance of fashion: useless. (One small whiff of humidity, and foof it went.) I got contact lenses, so people could finally see that I had a pretty face and not just four eyes: useless. (They were in the habit of seeing me through their own distorted, invisible funhouse lenses. Nothing I did was going to shatter those.)

No, the only thing that saved me from the whole thing was graduating. And going to university in a modest-sized city, where things were bigger all around. And learning to be myself, instead of some cookie-cutter knockoff of every other ditzy chick with Farrah Fawcett wings in her hair. It meant accommodating my curls, accepting my introverted, geekish nature, and learning to flip the bird at convention (and sometimes, at conventional people). And it meant becoming someone radically different not only from what the others were, but from what I had been and thought I should be.

Even a nervous breakdown and the realization that I wasn't going to make it to med school wasn't nearly as bad as being forcibly flipped out of the pond like I was all through my grade- and high-school years. Even realizing I'd fallen hopelessly in love with a gay guy, and being damn near suicidal at the ripe old age of 20, was a piece of cake compared to being shut out. I could get over my thwarted dreams, go beyond the misplaced romantic interest (he's still my best friend to this day--how 'bout THEM apples?), and even get past the desire to just go to sleep and never wake up. But this? No. It follows you silently everywhere.

I thought I had gotten away from it at university, good fucking riddance to small towns and smaller minds--only to find myself suddenly struggling with all the unresolved pain, anger and stark terror of those days. And sometimes, in the dead of night, when I should be asleep but just can't, I still have those moments where I forget who I am, who I've worked so hard to become. I even forget that the town has grown, and is not the same bigoted little place anymore. All I remember is what I have yet to overcome.

And what I have to overcome is that poison cruelty that seems almost inherent in people. The same that prompted Jean-Paul Sartre to say that hell is other people. It's not inborn; it's learned. And it gets passed down through generations. Each one gets beaten by the previous one until it bears the identical scars. Then it turns on the next and starts beating on them until they, too, bear those scars...

So when I read the obscene self-justifications that some people go through, presenting themselves, the bullies, as the poor little victims of a nasty, gay revolution--well, why not just wave a red cape in front of me and every other excluded kid? I mean, it's not as if you're not just asking to get your sorry asses kicked, is it now?

And yeah, I would so love to kick every ass of every person who ever did this to another. Doesn't matter for what "reason". I don't give a shit for your justifications; spare me the "explanations", I'm in no mood to hear any of them. Don't bother to comment here; I'll either delete it or declare you a Wanker of the Week, depending on whether my mood is fair or foul. You cannot explain or justify this. I know what you did. It has a name: CRUELTY.

Cruel isn't cool, and I'm not fucking cool with anyone who's cruel. I want to kick cruel people's asses, ALL of them. I'd wear out my trusty old cherry Docs doing it, no doubt about that.

But we're not supposed to kick ass; we're supposed to be meek, mild and forgiving. We're supposed to grow beyond all that. We're supposed to Forget. I mean, it's only a silly prom, fergawdsakes. For a bright kid with a future, it's supposed to be just a stumbling-stone on the road to Better Things. It's only important to those who peaked in high school. That ain't me, right?

Well, fuck it. I haven't forgotten. And I'm not sure I've forgiven, either. The fact that a fake prom so far from where I grew up has the power to trigger all my buried outrage and bring it crashing back like it only happened yesterday, is a testimony to the power that cruelty has. It has the power to make me forget, or at least minimize, the fact that I did go to a prom, in another town, with a guy not from my high school. He liked me more than I liked him. He was not the guy I'd have gone with, had I been "cool" enough to be offered a choice of dates; still, I showed him mercy, because he was an even bigger geek than I was. He didn't know what a loser I was to all my peers. To him, I was actually pretty. For his sake I put on a brave face and a beautiful outfit. How elegant I looked in my own hand-made royal-blue strapless moiré dress and my mom's black elbow gloves (a damn sight better than these tacky little prats, that's for sure.)

And yeah, I made the dress myself. Pleated overbodice, six-inch-wide sash, floor-length skirt, the works. And the black organdy ruffled shawl, too. See what happens when you apply yourself in Home Ec, girls? And don't you guys wish your girlfriends were hot--and SMART--like me?

But this makes it hard to remember that. It has the power to make me forget that I'm not the ostracized kid anymore, that I quit being that kid even in my last year at high school, where I began to morph into an adult whom other adults actually like. It even has the power to make me forget, for a moment, just how strong I really am.

And that strength didn't come out of nowhere; it came out of being that excluded, bullied kid. Maybe it's made me a better adult, a better listener, a more worthwhile person to talk to and with?


One thing it definitely HAS made me is glad that I don't fit in, after all. Because if fitting in among the bullies who made my youth hell is such a prize, I don't want it. I'd have to turn into a piece of shit just like them. What's that old saying? "Even if you win the rat race, you're still a rat", I believe is how it goes. Nope; no rodent here. Just a human being who doesn't need to pretend superiority.

And one who admires the hell out of Constance for taking you all on and showing you all up. She's got more class in her left pinky-nail than all of you have in your collective, pathetic, self-justifying carcass.

So yeah, bigoted kiddies, knock yourselves out claiming that you are the bullied ones, being shat on by northerners, gay revolutionary ACLUers, and people from the two coasts and God only knows where all else. Whine your sorry asses off about how everybody else looks down on you (as if YOU had a monopoly on pusillanimous shitheadedness!) Go play your smarmy phony victim card until it wears the hell out.

And it will, soon. Because it's flimsy. And because the rest of the world isn't stupid; it knows what lengths you went to in order to make sure your precious widdle prom was queer- and crip-cootie-free. That much secrecy takes planning and co-ordination. It takes a lot of complicity. It also takes massive amounts of cowardice. Not one of you kids had the stones to defy your parents, your school board, or your picky-picky peers; you are all a bunch of fucking wimps! You think you avoided "drama" by excluding Constance and her same-sex date, and a tiny bunch of disabled kids? HA! You just brought it on yourselves, ten-thousandfold. You deserve the shitstorm that you've got coming now.

And I, for one, will be pointing the finger at you and laughing when the verdict comes down against you. Because I love seeing the shoe go on the other foot, and pinching. It's not nice, I know. But it is satisfying. And it is so very, very richly deserved.

Sucks to be you, kids. Here, have another song. And try learning how to dance without that graceless booty-humping you did at your "drama-free" prom, 'kay? That shit's no cooler than your overt, deliberate cruelty was.

March 24, 2010

Ann Coulter really hates freedom of speech. Here's why...

Reason #1: It's very easy to own her bony ass with the facts.

All you have to do is get a word in edgewise, which of course is something this fast-talking nag doesn't want to allow. Fortunately, this CBC reporter didn't have to go all Bill O'Reilly on her and cut her mike. He just had to keep talking. Watch how her confidence turns to deer-in-the-headlights on a dime!

Reason #2: She's afraid of any serious challenge. Especially if it comes in boisterous crowds.

About two thousand noisy protesters is what it takes to get an Ann Coulter speech canceled, apparently.

That's the scene which transpired on Tuesday night at the University of Ottawa, where the right-wing author had planned a talk. Canadian media described the crowd as "boisterous."

"A spokesman for the group that organized the event said there were fears for Coulter's well-being after about two thousand people gathered outside the venue to protest her presence there," The Toronto Star reported.

Two thousand "boisterous" people, merely protesting? Not one weapon, not one death threat in all that crowd? Just people shouting and waving placards denouncing a foreign terrorist invader on our soil? Wow. Some threat to her "well-being". I guess for Ann, well-being is directly tied to her own monstrous ego and her ability to overtalk. You can do that one-on-one, or even one-on-two or -three. But one-on-two-thousand? Yeah, no wonder she felt threatened. One CBC reporter clobbering her with facts; two thousand students clobbering her with free speech. Kind of hard going, that!

But hey, Ann, you shouldn't have any problem standing up to them, I should think. Not if you really believed in free speech (for those other than your scrawny old self, of course). Not after what you said just a few short years ago:

"They better hope the United States doesn't roll over one night and crush them," she said on Hannity & Colmes in 2004. "They're lucky they're allowed to be on the same continent as the United States."

Yeah, big brave words. And just like everything else she blats to the four winds, utterly empty of meaning and devoid of fact.

Canadians won the War of 1812; it's the Yanks' best-kept secret and the reason for our so-called "luck". We taught them to show some respect, and we taught it to 'em the hard way. We torched the White House, Ann...and we are the only country ever, in all the world, to have done so.

Maybe that's why we're so "lucky", eh Ann?

Maybe you should count yourselves lucky that the Canucks didn't get greedy 200-odd years ago. We were quite content to merely keep you off our turf; we had no interest in stealing yours. If we were, you might be having to learn French in school today, Ann. And knowing you, with your massive ignorance and incuriosity about anything not immediately under your nose, you'd probably flunk it. Which would put your paltry notion of free speech at a double disadvantage.

As it is, you're an epic fail, and true free speech--which we do have, and exercise up here, as you've no doubt found out to your chagrin (that's French, Ann, look it up!)--has won the day.

C'est la merde.

December 30, 2009

Economics for Dummies: Capitalism + golf + scandal = ?


O Eldrick*, what hast thou wrought, forsooth?

The sex scandal that engulfed Tiger Woods may have cost shareholders of companies endorsed by the world's No. 1 golfer up to $12 billion in losses, according to a study by two economics professors from the University of California, Davis.

The study, released on Monday by researchers Victor Stango and Christopher Knittel, gave an estimate for damage to the market value of Woods' main sponsors caused by revelations of alleged extramarital affairs that surfaced after he was involved in a minor car accident outside his Florida home on November 27.

"We estimate that shareholders of Tiger Woods' sponsors lost $5-12 billion after his car accident, relative to shareholders of firms that Mr. Woods does not endorse," the researchers wrote, adding that millions of shareholders were affected.

Linkage added.

Millions of shareholders.

Sit back and let that sink in for a bit.

Done soaking? All righty then:

In their study, the two professors said they looked at stock market returns for the 13 trading days after November 27, the date of the car incident that ignited the Woods scandal.

They compared returns for Woods' sponsors during this period to those of both the total stock market and of each sponsor's closest competitor. They also reviewed returns for four years before the car accident to build up a comparative picture of the sponsors' market performance.


Overall, Knittel and Stango concluded that the scandal reduced shareholder value in the sponsor companies by 2.3 percent, or about $12 billion.

They called the results statistically significant and said the overall pattern of losses at the parent companies was unlikely to stem from ordinary day-to-day variation in their stock prices."

"...unlikely to stem from ordinary day-to-day variation in their stock prices."

Once more, sit back and soak that up, kiddies.

And when you're done with that, ask yourselves: Is it wise to "let the markets decide"? Especially if you're one of the millions who lost money thanks to the indiscretions of the all-too-priapic Mr. Woods?

I can't tell you exactly what to do next (that, as always, is up to you, kids), but it may be prudent to reconsider two things held dear in Conservolandia: One, the reliance on markets for your well-being, instead of a proper social safety net; two, belief in the whole "family values", squeaky-clean image thing. Obviously, neither of them has served certain parties here.

And for the record: I divested myself of both stocks long ago, folkies.

*Tiger's real name, according to Bartcop. Bartcop also calls him "Tiger Woo", and now we can see why.

December 12, 2009

Teh Heterostoopid: Traditional Marriage really works great!


Oh dear. Looks like Governor Cheaty-Pants is getting his comeuppance:

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford may be keeping his office, but he is losing his marriage.

First lady Jenny Sanford capped a tumultuous week by filing for divorce Friday, two days after state lawmakers stopped short of recommending her husband's removal for a top-secret June rendezvous with his Argentine mistress. He will not say whether he is still in contact Maria Belen Chapur, the woman he famously called his "soul mate."

Jenny Sanford, a former Wall Street executive who helped launch her husband's political career, said Friday their 20-year marriage could not be repaired.


Earlier this week, Jenny Sanford said in a television interview that it was a simple decision to not stand with the governor when he publicly confessed the affair.

"Certainly his actions hurt me, and they caused consequences for me, but they don't in any way take away my own self-esteem," the 47-year-old told ABC's Barbara Walters, who named her one of the most fascinating people of 2009. "They reflect poorly on him."

And the Appalachian Trail will never be the same again for hikers, either.

December 10, 2009

How very convenient...


Why are these mothers still marching? Because justice has not been served...and their children are still missing.

Isn't it funny how many repressors from the dictatorial age of the Argentine junta are getting away with murder--literally? Look who's going to miss his own trial:

The repressor Alfredo Astiz was admitted to the Naval hospital in Buenos Aires, 24 hours before the beginning of the trial for the Task Force which operated in the Navy Mechanics' School (ESMA) during the last military dictatorship.

Astiz was transferred from the Marcos Paz penitentiary, where he was in preventive custody, due to an apparent complication of a kidney tumor.

The hospitalization of Astiz makes it unlikely that he will be present for the opening of the trial which Oral Tribunal No. 5 (TOF 5) will begin on Friday for 19 repressors, for crimes against humanity committed at the ESMA.

Among the 19 who will be tried, along with Astiz, are Jorge "El Tigre" Acosta, Antonio Pernías, Jorge Rádice, Juan Carlos Rolón, Carlos Capdevilla, and Ricardo Miguel Cavallo.

Among the crimes for which they will be tried are the kidnapping and disappearance of the journalist Rodolfo Walsh, and the French nuns Léonie Duquet and Alice Domon.

The trial against the ESMA torturers has already been suspended twice. The first time, it was postponed due to proceedings for crimes committed in the Campo de Mayo jurisdiction, in which life sentences were handed out to ex-subcommander Jorge Olivera Roverre and ex-colonel Bernardo Menéndez. Three other chiefs were acquitted. Later, the trial was again postponed because one of the tribunal judges had to be replaced.

This Thursday, from noon to midnight, several human-rights organizations will be holding a Resistance March, which takes place every December 10, at the Plaza de Mayo, in memory of the 30,000 disappeared persons.

The 29th march will be headed by the Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo, Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, HIJOS, families of the disappeared and political prisoners, and Siblings. Among other things they are calling for the living reappearance of Julio López, the witness who disappeared just before the trial of the repressor, Miguel Etchecolatz.

Translation mine. Linkage added.

The comments at the site are full of anger, as well they might be. Alfredo Astiz is one of the most infamous of the ESMA's many foul repressors. Along with the murders of the French nuns, who had worked with the poor in the farming province of Corrientes, he is also known to have infiltrated the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo, pretending he had lost a brother to the dictatorship. It was a lie, of course. As was Astiz's later claim that he was "just following orders". One of the leading Mothers wound up being "disappeared" herself; that was Astiz's doing.

Up to now, Astiz has gone largely unpunished. What justice has found him, has been at the hands of ordinary citizens taking revenge the only way they could. According to Marguerite Feitlowitz's A Lexicon of Terror,

The first assault was in the ski resort of San Carlos de Bariloche. Astiz and a female companion were waiting for the bus to take them to the slopes, when the Blond Angel [Astiz] was recognized by a former detainee in the camp called Vesuvius. "All I could see were [the Mothers'] white kerchiefs," said the assailant, Alfredo Chávez, a witness at the trial of the ex-commanders. "Son of a bitch! Killer of adolescents!" he yelled, and punched Astiz in the nose. [...] Encouraged by the [navy], Astiz filed suit. For counsel he retained Pedro Bianchi, the lawyer who was defending Erich Priebke, the Nazi who, until his extradition, lived close to the Bariloche ski resort. The next attack took place in greater Buenos Aires; the assailants this time were two brothers, age nineteen and twenty, taking their dog to the vet. [...] En route, a car pulled in front of them, blocking their way. From behind his window, the driver, Astiz, taunted the boys with an obscene gesture. The captain was recognized by the younger brother. Though this attack was worse, neither Astiz nor the navy reported it to the police. No one came to the captain's defense as the brothers pulled him from his car, hit him so hard in the mouth his dental plate popped out, then bashed in the hood of his vehicle. "Good boys! Kill him!" yelled a woman through the open window of a bus. [...] The boys' father, a devoutly religious man, did not defend his sons' behavior, but offered an explanation that struck a chord with many parents with whom I spoke: "This is what happens after you're obliged to tell your children that justice here doesn't function as it should, that the courts refused to castigate the most horrendous crimes of a horrendous dictatorship."

What the father said explains a lot, does it not?

This is why, in Argentina, there is still so much unresolved. The courts are often stacked with old repressors or their sympathizers; the police and military ranks likewise. Corrupt politicians are as common as dirt. With "authorities" like that, is it any wonder that ordinary citizens are reduced to hauling known repressors like Astiz out of their cars and beating the shit out of them?

And is it any wonder that the HIJOS, the Mothers and Grandmothers of Plaza de Mayo, the "reappeared" ones, and so many others, hold these big annual protest marches?

Until there is real change in Argentina, this seems to be the form that justice will take--a combination of angry, impulsive outbursts and dignified organized protests that make so much noise that no one could miss them.

(Muchas gracias to Otto for drawing my attention to this story.)

December 1, 2009

Welcome to Reality, Chuck...


You know things are getting bad for fascism when prominent rats start leaving the ship.

November 19, 2009

More fun with Wikileaks: David Irving gets popped


Looks like the best tool in the anti-fascist arsenal just might be the Internets, after all. Look who's the latest to get leaked on Wikileaks:

Attached is an email message database for the controversial holocaust historian David Irving. The email addresses used by Mr. Irving are and The data was passed to WikiLeaks by an anti-fascist hacker.

The leak went public on November 14--the day Irving was slated to speak in New York City. No word on precisely where. This secrecy was apparently what prompted the hacking, according to the Phoenix New Times (and the leak itself). In the process, it turns out that his buxom blond assistant, Jaenelle Antas, who even posted to Stormfront on his behalf (iiiiiiiiick!), is getting fed up with the way he treats her:

You asked for more advance notice if I wanted to flounce out--I am considering it. You were very well behaved on this whole tour up until this past week when you have been snotty, rude, and disrespectful towards me. This is exactly the same way you behaved last summer and the very reason I flounced out then.

I don't care if you are frustrated, angry, stressed out, tired, or whatever--treating anybody the way you have been treating me is unacceptable. I bend over backwards to help you out on this tour, doing jobs that last year you would have done yourself, and not just making bookings, but also doing things like driving, helping you secure funds to reprint books and locating second-hand books. The only thanks I usually get are long whines about how something isn't exactly perfect.

Why would anybody in the world want to work with or even be friends with someone who is acting the way you have been acting lately? You like to say you treat me better than anyone else does, but the truth is, lately you have treated me worse than anyone else ever has. It hurts my feelings, it makes me angry and resentful, and it makes me question whether or not I should be doing this job anymore.

Hmmm. I wonder if this speaking engagement was one of the bookings she speaks of. Probably is!

And speaking of the engagement, here's a message revealing the probable venue:

*Hello "J" or David Irving,

Venue for New York City on Saturday Nov. 14, from 6-10PM or 7PM-11PM 4 hour

Catholic Kolping Society
165 East 88th Street
(Between Lexington Avenue & 3rd Avenue)
New York, NY 10028

Should not be more than $300.00--Will know exact cost later...Call me anytime: 917-974-6367


Michael Santomauro

Editorial Director

Call anytime: 917-974-6367


Oh boy, somebody is in for major embarrassment now. He's the "editorial director" for this slimy revisionist site. You can read more about him and the kind of bogus "hidden history" he espouses here. And here is another interesting indictment of his character, and that of those he pals around with and/or inspires to new heights of paranoia.

And surprise! He's on Stormfront, too. So much for his playing-both-sides denials that he's an antisemite. You don't find anyone there who's not one.

BTW, the event was cancelled when the Kolping Society got wind of what was really going on. Looks good on ya, Michael.

And here are some other major embarrassments for you to peruse and chuckle over:

NJ list for tomorrow incl latecomers



Date: Fri, Nov 13, 2009 12:00 am

[Attachment] NJ_list_incl_latecomers_12.11.09

Darling J, you are so efficient and beautiful. Please work your magic on (a)
attached list (b) me

That's from Irving to his lovely assistant. I wonder what he meant by (b)...

Question about this Saturday in NYC

From: Allen Rouse


Date: Thu, Nov 12, 2009 12:37 pm

Hello Mr.Irving,

My name is Allen Rouse and my wife and I will be attending your talk this Saturday in NYC. I am part of the media group at Stormfront, I do a weekly program on Stormfront Radio called "The Staropramen Show", Staropramen is my username there. I would like to know if it would be possible for me to videotape the talk on Saturday for Stormfront. Don Black, SF's proprietor has informed us that a major overhaul is being done to the site in the coming weeks which will include our own video hosting capabilities and it would be nice to have this talk for this new feature. I look forward to meeting you and enjoying your always brilliant and informative talks.

Yours truly,

Allen Rouse/Staropramen

Uh oh, looks like somebody's been outed! Heh heh heh. (This one was apparently also at the NYC engagement--or rather, hoping to be.)

And here's one that frankly creeps me out:

Larry D---- [] has written:

I enjoyed your Houston lecture very much and was glad to see that you were well, especially because you have been through quite a bit since I saw you in Idaho
some four years ago. I have been a fan for years, but I found particular
interest in last night's talk due to the fact that I have just embarked on a new
career in Military Intelligence. I find myself referencing WW2 with each new
concept I learn in training, resulting in [I believe] a better understanding of
the material than my peers who do not study history. For this knowledge of WW2, I thank you. Your books are quite compelling and have been my favorites.

Your lovely assistant mentioned that she will send a copy of your web-archives
on disk, just as you agreed to do for another gentlemen in attendance last
night. I thank you (both) very much.

Your tour of Rastenburg looks as if it is a one of a kind event. I do hope that
things go well enough in order for you to have a second one; I will be unable to
go to this one, as I will still be in training. Perhaps I can follow your trip online.

Kindest Regards,

The signature says he's a second lieutenant in the US Air Force. Uh, USAF? You may want to vet your officers more closely. Just a friendly suggestion.

You may also want to take a closer look at this one, while you're at it:

Montgomery,AL Visit



Date: Tue, Oct 20, 2009 2:18 pm

Will be out of town in Gulf Shores, AL playing in a golf tournament during your
visit. I look forward to your new WW II book.

Sorry I am going to miss this visit. I will send a donation to Key West to help
with expenses.

Two questions:

1.If I could arrange it, would you be interested in speaking at the US Air Force
top professional military officers school the Air War College located here in
Montgomery at Maxwell AFB on some future visits? The college has about 300
colonels/ lieutenant colonels in attendance. I was a senior faculty member at
the College when I retired.

2. What did you think of Pat Buchanan's book "Churchill, Hitler, and the
Unnecessary War"?


The signed name (and home address) is that of an Air Force colonel in Alabama. Yeek. If this he's on active duty, he should definitely come to the generals' attention, no?

Here you go, Generals dear--check 'em all out for yourselves: That Wikleaks link, again...

I stripped the major identifiers from them here, but you can find the uncensored versions there without undue difficulty. Happy hunting!

And maybe it's time to consider just what the ramifications of protecting Nazi nonsense under the rubric of "free speech" really are, eh? After all, didn't your forces fight against this during World War II? Be a damned shame if it ended up destroying what you've pledged to defend, no?


November 13, 2009

Lou Dobbs photoshop du jour


Well, if FUX Snooze doesn't take him, he can always go into porn.

Keith O. eviscerates Lou Dobbs

Have I mentioned yet how very much I love Keith Olbermann?

He makes Lou sound like a cross between Dracula and Sesame Street's Grover. And he's got some job-search tips for the old chupacabra, too...

November 11, 2009

This just in from CNN...


...via Democracy Now:

Lou Dobbs Resigns From CNN

The controversial TV anchor has resigned from CNN amid a campaign to force him off the air due to his reporting on Latinos and immigrants.

(rubbing eyes)

Can it be?

Is it true?

I have to check this out further...

Dear Goddess, it IS true. TIME just posted an article on "departing CNN anchor Lou Dobbs", 30 minutes ago.

Good riddance to a journalist gone bad. Publicly subscribing to anti-immigrant AND birther nonsense means he's no longer competent to report.

Plus, let's not forget that racists loved him. And the feeling is definitely mutual.

Adios, cabrón.

November 4, 2009

Racist concern troll is out of a job



A Louisiana justice of the peace who refuses to marry interracial couples resigned Tuesday, after weeks of calls for his ouster from civil rights groups and several public officials, including the governor.

Keith Bardwell quit with a one-sentence statement to Louisiana Secretary of State Jay Dardenne: "I do hereby resign the office of Justice of the Peace for the Eighth Ward of Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, effective November 3, 2009."

Gov. Bobby Jindal called Bardwell's resignation "long overdue."


When questioned, Bardwell, who is white, acknowledged he routinely avoids marrying interracial couples because he believes children born to them end up suffering. In interviews, he said he refers the couples to other justices of the peace, who then perform the ceremony, which happened in this case.

"There is a problem with both groups accepting a child from such a marriage," Bardwell said in an October interview with The Associated Press. "I think those children suffer, and I won't help put them through it."

Bardwell didn't return repeated calls Tuesday to comment about his resignation, which followed calls for his removal from officials including Jindal and U.S. Sen. Mary Landrieu.

Too bad, so sad. Now he'll have to find some other outlet for his misplaced concern for the chee-uldrun.

October 21, 2009

Dang, I'm GOOD.


Remember how I predicted the Paliness was headed for the remainder bin even before her book is due out?

Well, it's already underway:

Former governor Sarah Palin completed her memoir in four months. She knew what she wanted to say, apparently, and had Lynn Vincent, a senior writer for the Christian publication World Magazine, bang it out. The book is due November 17 and is originally listed at $28.99 at Amazon, except that it's already available at a cut-rate discount: Going Rogue is priced-to-sell at a mere $9- that's for a hardcover due out in three weeks. Which raises the question: How many bestseller lists can the book top before it's printed?

Actually, it raises another, far more pertinent (and probably rhetorical) question: Will it earn out its advance?

BTW, there's a screen-grab from Amazon at the site. Go see it before Going, Going, Gone is down to a quarter (or less) of its MSR price, instead of the third where it currently sits.

And when you're ready for some real laughs, click here.

And don't say I didn't tell you so!

September 28, 2009

Allen Stanford comes down another peg


Not so high and mighty NOW, eh, "Sir" Allen?

Actually, the tall Texan's been taken down another peg. Undoubtedly getting something richly deserved here:

Allen Stanford, the indicted Texas tycoon and cricket impresario who bankrolled the Twenty20 game, has suffered two black eyes and a broken nose in a punch-up in prison.

Mr Stanford, facing trial for allegedly running a $7 billion pyramid scheme through his Antigua-based bank, was admitted to hospital with concussion after the fight on Thursday, officials said. The US Marshals Service said that the 59-year-old, an imposing figure who is 6ft 6in, got into an altercation with another inmate around 10am.

The cause of the fight and the identity of the other inmate involved were not immediately released. The prison is conducting an investigation.

I notice no one's calling him "Sir" anymore. He's just "Mr." now.

I'm sorry, but I just can't muster up much sympathy for the guy. I wonder why?


I haven't a clue, do you?

EDIT: Oh lordy-loo, wouldja look at this:

In less than five minutes, he goes from tearful to eye-bugging anger, from "baloney" to "bullshit", and from wounded victim to threatening to punch someone in the mouth. Hmmm, do you think this show of true colors carried over into the "intolerable" conditions in the pokey?