Justkidding.com

Rick Santorum

Wed, 16 Feb 2011 16:38:02 EST

I forgot about this! Turns out that Rick Santorum still has political ambitions but he is troubled by having been such a horrifying jagoff that the web got all enthusiastic when some guy asked people to propose definitions for the word 'santorum'. The one that stuck is that it is a "frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."

Santorum deserves to be associated with santorum. He is a homophobe and a right-wing low-life. One can only hope that this post helps keep the joke alive and that his potential supporters are stupid enough that it matters.

(here)

The Depths of Belief

Fri, 22 Oct 2010 23:37:58 EST

Williams � who just got a $2 million deal for three years with Fox News � said it is making him rethink his previous beliefs about the left wing (here)

Sure, he was a liberal. Deeply committed.

Rethink my butt.

Out of the CLoset

Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:20:58 EST

Watson asked if violence would be in option in 2010, under the current government.

"The option is on the table. I don't think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms," Broden said, without elaborating. "However, it is not the first option." (here)

This is the natural meaning of the rhetoric of the right and of their arrogance. We have a government elected by a substantial majority of the people. The right thinks they know better.

Even short of violence, the rhetoric and manipulation has been vicious and unprecedented. We are in a very dangerous time.

This is Rich

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:54:54 EST

"I think the U.S. Congress should investigate NPR and consider cutting off their money," said Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who is also a Fox News contributor (here)

That's it. You perceive an unfair suppression of speech. What's the natural thing to do? Of course, call for the suppression of more speech.

I have to say that I am not enthusiastic about Juan Williams firing. I listened to the whole clip and his viewpoint was largely ok. His main point was that we need to dialog about this stuff.

Along the way, he denied being a bigot while explaining the ways in which he is a bigot (they make him afraid if they are wearing religious garb, thus showing that they are Moslems "first").

I think bigotry suggests an opinion bias that is probably a legitimate firing offense when you have been hired for your opinions (sort of like getting old and tired is a firing offense for a basketball player; unfair but obvious). Still, he wasn't exactly calling for them to be pilloried in the public square.

The beautiful thing though is how quickly Gingrich and the rest of the right call for the suppression of NPR's voice as a remedy for their suppressing William's. To call Newt Gingrich a hypocrite is an insult to hypocrites everywhere.

End of the World

Sat, 16 Oct 2010 09:34:07 EST

More people think that the Democratic party is dominated by extremists than think the same of the Republicans (44% to 37%). Even Democrats think their party is dominated by extremists.

Susan Duclos at Wake Up America notes that the poll result �even crossed party lines with one-in-five Democrats, 22 percent, saying their own party was dominated by extremists, which is double the amount of Republicans that said the same thing about the GOP (11 percent).� (here)

The Democrats have so warmly embraced the 'center' that anyone that says a left-leaning word stands out like a sore thumb. The Republicans, on the other hand, immediately adopt the language and policy of even the most outrageous right wing. With so many people saying the same thing, it couldn't be extreme despite the fact that, by historical standards, today's most egregious lefties are the right wingers of yesteryear.

Richard Nixon, the right-wing bete noir of my youth, enacted price controls on gasoline, the Clean Air act, and a zillion other policies that make the most "socialist" ideas of today look like the right-leaning pablum that they are. History is of no interest, though, to the American 'booboisie'. It is forgotten as soon as the next sitcom airs. "Uh, Dad, what does 'those who forget history are doomed to repeat it' even mean?" "I dunno." Jump back to the good old days of 1967 street protests, add 50% more people and 100% more guns. That's what it means.

There are still left-leaning people out there. Their sense of disenfranchisement is palpable and they remember those 'good old days'. The Tea Partiers have included violence in their rhetoric from the beginning. The "most liberal President" in history has continued to enhance every repressive 'anti-terror' policy dreamed of by the rightest of right wingers. Toss in an economy sure to be brutal for years, the ascendance of Asia and South America, oil-based energy policy and the upcoming consequences of global warming, and you have good reason to fear the reaper.

Whether our fate ends up in the hands of our own Pol Pot (I'm looking at you, Newt Gingrich), American-style Sandinistas or a special NSA version of Kim Jung Il is hard to predict but one thing is sure. It's not going to be driven by the "extremists" in the Democratic party, the Vichy of American politics. They will motivate by repudiating themselves, putting wet blankets on every idea they have, and proudly displaying their lack of conviction in their hideous rush to the center.

I Dream

Fri, 01 Oct 2010 00:21:20 EST

Imagine if the Democrats suddenly jumped up and said, "Ok, America, the gag is over. We have refused to harp on our accomplishemnts as a way to get the Republicans to show you how they will act if they have power. Instead, they said exactly the same thing as always.

So, here's the thing, I participated in saving the economy, providing secure health care for Americans, saving five million jobs by refinincing the auto industy, and made a financial consumer protection agency.

If doing a financial consumer protection agency seems like a bad idea to you then, I don't want your vote. I don't really want to feel allied with that."

And then, refuse to talk about anything Republicans say and act in a way befitting such large accomplishments: compliment them, extol their virtues, enjoy the primacy of the positive with an optimistic viewpoint.

Do it in a stark and audacious way. Get buzz by doing a gigantic, 'Get with the smart choice' campaign.

The Gift That Keeps on Giving

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 20:31:48 EST

This Catholic Apologetics website has been a lot of fun for me. I've not had anything to argue about in a while. Politics has become so stupid that no argument can be made that is more useful than, "You're all idiots."

This website has everything, intolerance, anti-semitism, weird conservative ideas, everything I need to engage my analytic mind and inspire me to self-expression.

Here is a response to a page (HERE) called, Tough Questions for Pro-Abortionists:

1. Why is it that the very people who say the governments should stay out of abortion are the same ones who want the government to pay for them?

This one is hard to answer. Not because of difficulty but because it is such silly propaganda. It has absolutely nothing to do with abortion. It is simply an attempt to ridicule people that see things differently.

2. Abortion advocates say they are in the business to help women. Other than offering to kill their children for them, what are they doing?

They are giving them back their lives. For many women and girls, a baby will destroy their life (statistics overwhelmingly support this). If they carry it to term, their educational future is bleak. They will make less money. They are more likely to be homeless. The list of awful consequences of an unwanted child is endless. Abortion doctors support a woman's choice to avoid these consequences for both her and the potential, unwanted child.

3. Pro-abortionists say that the unborn child is part of the mother's body. If that is so, why does the child possess a completely different genetic code and often a different blood type? How do you explain the fact that it has its own immune system? Why is it male half the time?

The assertion that it's part of the mother is simple, indelible fact. Try, for example, to take the baby to a movie without the mother. Can't be done. The fact of different genetics and immune systems apply to a freshly eaten oyster, too. It's not proof of anything, nor does it say anything about what is a part of what.

But, ok, the argument is trying to assert personhood by noting that there are aspects of the fetus that make it an individual. Nobody doubts that, if left intact for long enough, the fetus will turn into a person. Anti-choice people say that it turns into a person really, really soon. Pro-choice people say it's not until much later.

So, the question comes down to whether the fetus is a "life" that cannot be taken. Catholicism says that it cannot. Other people have religions that say it can. Catholicism says that the sacred soul is in place on day one. Others say it doesn't have a soul until it smiles at its mother. Genetics and immune systems don't really have anything to do with that.

4. Pro-abortionists say that outlawing abortion would restrict a woman's right to privacy. But is that right absolute? Does somebody's right to privacy exceed another's right to live?

In many cases, a person's rights do exceed another's right to live. Look at any battlefield. Look at death row. We make the allowance for self-defense.
More importantly though, rights are granted to people. A woman is definitely a person. It requires no subtle reasoning or resort to religious preference. She can go into a room with another person and do whatever she wants.

The Supreme Court understands that allowing the police to look into every room to make sure of what that woman does with her own body is an invasion of a fundamental right. Imagine, if you will, that the police got the idea that they should be able to listen in a confessional and you will see that the right to privacy is not trivial.

5. If what they say is true and the issue isn't really abortion but a woman's right to control her own body, why doesn't your agenda include drugs and prostitution? Aren't laws against those most restrictive to a woman's right to choose what she will and will not do with her own body as laws against abortion are?

For many, the agenda does include those things, however, few pro-choice people have some absolute prohibition on restrictions about what one can do, with a body, to a body or near a body. For the most part, the restrictions that are acceptable are ones that have consequences to other people, people whose existence does not rely on subtle judgements about when life begins or invisible conversations with one god or another.

Further, those restrictions are subject to trade-offs, as are most things. Abortion is, in the view of many people, a very important and necessary service with immense benefits to the women that need them, benefits that outweigh the damage to a fetus they do not believe is a human being. Those that wish to prohibit drugs and prostitution judge the damage to outway the benefits.

6. We are now seeing the unborn being treated for disease, given blood transfusions and even operated on. When a doctor does one of these procedures, who is the patient?

The mother. She's also the one that pays the bill. Same as when she has heart bypass or any other medical procedure on stuff inside her body.

7. Why is it that abortion advocates say they want women to have all their options, but they fight so hard against laws requiring totally informed consent?

Because the definition of "totally informed" is defined to meet the prejudices of the anti-choice partisans and includes many irrelevant details intended to cause the woman pain and confusion. If she believes that the 'soul' doesn't enter the body until a later date, then the autonomic reactions of a fetus are not relevant. Further, the 'facts' are implied to have meanings that are inaccurate. We had the same problem with Terry Schaivo.

8. If pro-abortionists are mainly concerned with the health and safety of women, why do they fight so hard against legislation requiring abortion providers to meet the same medical standard as legitimate outpatient surgery clinics?

Because it is not the same as other outpatient surgery. No incisions are done. No general anesthesia. Many, many differences make the application of the same standards a waste and would increase the costs to make them prohibitive.

9. Let's look at a hypothetical situation. Two women become pregnant on the same day. Six months later woman A has a premature baby who is in need of some medical help, and the clinic workers are all trying hard to give the baby the medical attention necessary. Why would it be morally wrong to refuse such treatment to the premature born baby, but a "legal right" to kill the baby in woman B if she should choose to have an abortion? How can location (inside vs. outside the womb) make an essential difference? Besides, in partial-birth abortions, the baby is halfways outside the womb (oftentimes crying already).

Better yet, let's look at a real situation. In 1850, it was normal and obvious that a six month premature baby would be allowed to die. It was the moral thing to do. Nobody thought that it was right to make the family suffer through the deprivation that caring for an infant that was so unlikely to survive was sane, let alone moral. What's different about today that makes this baby so much more precious? Scientific advance.

Today we have people who keep frozen eggs and sperm at great expense and other people don't care at all about the life potential of their sperm and eggs. They let eggs die monthly, masturbate their sperm out of existence and otherwise deny the fact that those unique genetic entities could be made to live, even though they could be collected and fertilized ,i.in vitro and turned into a child. Should we revise our morality to prohibit this disrespect for life?

If your God says yes, good for you. The God of many others thinks that moral principles have a certain immutability. Those people think that moral principles that need to be discarded as conditions change are not really moral. Some prefer principles that address fundamental issues deeply enough to cover situations in previously unknown contexts.

Here's morality that need not change: Let a woman, the one person that knows everything about her life and potential as a mother, consult her own conscience and do what she feels is best for her and her potential child. It is not moral for outsiders to force her to capitulate to their moral calculations.

10. If it is true that "men cannot talk about abortion" because it's a "women's issue," how come pro-abortionists have no problem accepting the ruling Roe v. Wade, which was exclusively made by men?

Nobody says men cannot talk about abortion. Most pro-choice people agree that a woman's body is her domain and no man can make decisions about that. Talking is allowed.

More importantly, though, this question demonstrates the fundamental lack of moral seriousness of the anti-choice movement. It has nothing to do with the issue of abortion. It is a silly attempt to make fun of women that have a serious life problem. One that most women take very seriously and can have huge consequences to their lives. That this question needs to be included to make a long enough list shows how little there really is to the anti-choice viewpoint. In the end it comes down to, "My religion says abortions are bad so nobody can have one."

Here is my real bottom line, though. I have never, ever heard an argument against abortion, as illustrated above, that doesn't come down to the idea that God considers life to be precious. Personally, I think that's a fine thing for God to think and for followers to believe. It is not fine, however, for said believers to insist that others believe, or act, the same way. Their hearts may go out to the little babies that are lost and that's a shame, but their sadness doesn't give them the right to assert their moral vision on other people with the force of law. My God tells me that it is an awful sin to bring a child into this world that will not be loved by its mother and who will not have the resources to enjoy a fulfilling life.

You say your God outranks my God. You would have police use their guns to force me to abandon the instructions given to me by my God. Until the American Consitution came along and said that it is wrong for the police to be recruited to enforce anyone's religious dictates, these issues were settled by finding out which God produced the most vicious soldiers.

I admit that, for most of the modern age, it turns out that the Christians were, in fact, the most vicious ones and so, brought many other peoples to heel. I know that modern Christians regret this. The anti-choice movement is encouraging a transition back to those bad old days. It is causing otherwise decent, Christian people to think they have the right to enforce their religious values on people outside their religion. This is un-American. It is dangerous and will eventually cause schism and violence in America. Worse, though, it is wrong to insert oneself into another person's moral calculation in this way.

One thing most religions agree on is, Do not do unto others that which is hateful to yourself. Imagine if the pro-choice people tried to pass a law forcing a Christian to abort defective babies, thus trying to force that Christian to follow the other's moral code. It would be the epitome of "hateful to yourself." It would also be a moral violation.

This is Rich

Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:11:15 EST

Someone turned me onto a Catholic website. Its goal is to collect all of the arguments (apologia) supporting Catholicism in the world. It also has a huge section of awful anti-semetic stuff. That makes sense though because the premise of much of the positive doctrine is that no faith other than Catholicism is legitimate. That makes sense because their God tells them so.

Of course, it makes less sense to those of us whose God says something else.

Anyway, there is an article entitled, The Problem with the Pro-Life Movement and it is fascinating. Among it's points is that abortion is a symptom of the lack of faith in society based on the false goal of "false ecumenism". False ecumenism is the kind that focuses on unqualified brotherhood. "True" ecumenism is the kind where you will allow others change their ways and accept Catholicism. Sheesh.

It gets better though. This guy has come to think that the so-called, pro-life movement is actually a mistake. That by battling it, they are attacking the symptom, not the cause.

Said cause is, religious tolerance:

Has our faith so weakened over the past 35 years, and have we become so indifferent with regard to religion, that we believe salvation is possible by the profession of any faith as long as they share our moral values? One who believes that each person has the right to choose their own morality has fallen into the error of moral relativism; and one who believes that each person is free to chose their own religion has fallen into the error of religious indifferentism. Relativism is to morals what indifferentism is to faith. (here)

The thing is, I agree with this guy.

One of the main reasons that we have the separation of church and state in this country is that the founders realized that not only do people have different ideas about faith that they should be free to engage, but that whenever the state gets involved with religion it perverts it.

And I believe that works both ways. When religious people try to apply their doctrine to non-believers, ie, fashion secular laws that seek to impose their peculiar moral order, they necessarily become involved in compromises that diminish their faith.

In the modern world, look at how hate filled the Christian right has become. It's like a caricature of opposite-Christianity. The same with militant-Islam where they have taken a religion that values obedience and a smooth-functioning society and made it a leading cause of international chaos. The Jews in Israel, practicing a religion that calls for acceptance of the fact of other viewpoints, has become an oppressor of an entire race of people, all because they are trying to have a "Jewish state". It's like trying to have a clean mudball. Mix church and state and you get neither.

This guy's problem with the modern order comes from the fact that his co-religionists have decided to try to impose their views on those that don't agree. Consequently, they have had to develop distasteful relationships and compromises. It is fine for him to define ecumenism as only offering good will to those that want to be Catholics. The true root of his problem is that he wants that to include everyone.

tqwhite|tqwhite

Ground Zero Mosque

Sat, 07 Aug 2010 18:04:28 EST

I have two things to comment about today, maybe three.

First, I agree with Fareed Zakaria referring to the decision by the AntiDefamation League to oppose a mosque built near Ground Zero in New York.

You are choosing to use your immense prestige to take a side that is utterly opposed to the animating purpose of your organization. Your own statements subsequently, asserting that we must honor the feelings of victims even if irrational or bigoted, made matters worse. (here)

It is a terrible thing for a group as broad-minded and supportive of all things culturally inclusive to have decided that the distaste (they call it pain, sorry, not nine years later) of the few thousand people called victims is worth changing the course of history. If this mosque is not built, Moslems will be perfectly correct in feeling that they are an isolated group, singled out for special, negative treatment. It's simply appalling.

Second, I am deeply amused at the right-wing response to Fareed's decision to return his accolade from the ADL. You can imagine them endlessly rewriting sentences that start out as, "I hate those liberal ADL bastards but I agree with them." Perusing the right-wing blogosphere, I can find no real commentary. Suddenly mute.

It makes me think of gay marriage in California. They can't find a way to respond to the exquisitely reasonable decision. I imagine those people endlessly editing sentences that begin, "No!! It's really a bad thing. It's just that the reasons are so super-secret we couldn't reveal them in a public trial."

LOL

Matching Campaign Funding

Sat, 31 Jul 2010 01:38:31 EST

In Florida a judge ruled today that it was probably a violation of the constitution for the state of Florida to subsidize campaign financing for candidates that face an opponent that has spent more than the maximum amount the non-rich guy is allowed in donations.

That is, if a rich guy spends more than it is even legal for the other candidate to collect, then the state comes in and maintains economic parity.

This seems like the voters of Florida got together and said, "We don't really want to have a big disparity between the side in elections. We want to tune the balance away from the money and more toward the ideas of the candidates."

The rich guy claimed that this subsidy reduced his freedom of speech. His lawyer said some mumbo jumbo about how it invalidates the benefit of having money. It's egregiously dumb.

And yet, a judge said it was likely that the rich guy's lawyer's legal theory was convincing and will probably prevail when they get to trial so, screw you Florida electorate!

I do not understand how, in anyone's wildest dreams, under and circumstances even utter the idea, "The best way to get more free speech is to stop this other guy from speaking."

And even more, I don't understand why the rich guy gets to violate campaign spending limits and the poor guy doesn't. It seems to me that the benefit of private money is a lot more complex than just being able to spend more. In this case, different spending allowances.

I don't know about you but this doesn't seem right to me.

Jorno-List, the Liberal Media

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:52:59 EST

It's painful to contemplate the Jorno-List. I think it's incredibly unfair to invade the privacy of this bunch of people that way it has been done. I think it is hurtful to our society to make it so that people have to be afraid to communicate frankly. I like and respect many of the people that are being mentioned in this connection.

I am appalled to find out what a bunch of feckless bums they are. Imagine, we actually have a liberal media and the idiots don't take partisan advantage. Worse, they think carefully about their decisions and what stories are worth pursuing.

And, get this, they are afraid that some stories might not be worth it and, incredible, might not be worth pursuing!!

Get this:

Seriously, folks? Best case scenario, what�s your outcome here: Her daughter, hounded by the tabloids, breaks down that it was her child, and her mother heroically took on the burden and welcomed the disabled boy as one of her own? Palin�s relationship with her children � however they may have come to her � strikes me as pretty far out of bounds. By all accounts she�s a wonderful mother, and devoted to her fifth son. Leave this be.. (here)

That's right. He considered the ultimate result of the story and he took account of what little he knows about the topic in making the judgement of whether it made sense. Worse, he gave consideration to the human question of whether attacking a person's relationship with her children was acceptable.

Yet somehow Andrew Sullivan considers this quote to be the smoking gun. Apparently, something about this tells us that they decided to pursue a partisan agenda.

Oh yeah, and another person explicitly worried that she might be allowing her dislike of Republicans to make her believe things that weren't true. How Dare She!

This whole thing is a crime. I have not yet read anything that suggests that these people were anything other than normal, hard-working folks, trying to get along in life. They have their viewpoints and expressed themselves in that context. They don't even slightly seem to me to be doing anything wrong.

I hate Andrew Sullivan. I hate all right-wingers.

Lino Lakes, MN tells foreigners, Go Away!!

Mon, 26 Jul 2010 22:43:04 EST

Another bunch of idiots pass an English-only law. "But we're really friendly."

Unless, of course, you don't speak like they do.

Sat, 03 Jul 2010 21:51:43 EST

I can't believe it took until now fir someone to notice this, but my brother Phred just compared Deepwater Horizon to Chernobyl. It is a massive disaster created by careless people who consider their own well-being and profit to be the only important consideration.

We dodged a bullet with Three Mile Island but not so with this. Blame it in the British if you want, but it's was allowed by our lax regulations and encouraged by our complete unwillingness to take responsibility both for massive oil use and for drilling safely. That is to say, the Brits at BP are the instruments we used to destroy the Gulf.

We don't get to look at the Russians with disdain any more. We are now the culprits and, for good measure, fifty percent if us support the anti-regulation anti-conservation idiocy of the ciservative regime that has held sway for years.

It's a sad realization.

Sat, 03 Jul 2010 01:03:01 EST

"hi jeffie"

"hiya, teek!"ReadMore Here

Thu, 03 Jun 2010 09:22:53 EST

"Israelis are resigned to the fact that reason will not shake the world�s blatant double standard. Our blockade of Gaza is �criminal�; yet nobody mentions that Egypt has had a blockade of Gaza in place since 2007, and has never hesitated to use lethal force against those trying to break it. Israel�s attempt to enforce a blockade becomes an international crisis, while most of the world shrugs when North Korea sinks a South Korean ship." Ain't it the truth. Read Here

BP is No Different than Any Other Oil Company.

Mon, 31 May 2010 23:15:09 EST

I watched an outpouring of hatred for British Petroleum today. People are boycotting and saying harsh things. There is no question that they deserve it heartily. There is also no question that they are just the one that got caught.

I will bet anyone that no other oil company would do any better or has taken any fewer dangerous shortcuts or made any real preparations for disaster. They are all the same and are all enabled by our acceptance of their presence and business practices.

Which is to say, boycott all oil companies. Don't encourage the rest of them. Make clear that they have to prove that they are fully admirable before you're willing to do business with their dishonorable asses.

I know. Nobody is going to drive any less. Nobody is really going to inconvenience themselves to send a message to the oil industry. That's a bit of a shame.

Sun, 23 May 2010 12:03:35 EST

"But the U.C.L.A. project was an effort to capture a relatively new sociological species: the dual-earner, multiple-child, middle-class American household. The investigators have just finished working through the 1,540 hours of videotape, coding and categorizing every hug, every tantrum, every soul-draining search for a missing soccer cleat." This is the coolest thing I've read in a long time. Read it Here

Sat, 22 May 2010 10:30:21 EST

" Despite the lies pedaled by MSNBC and Lefty bloggers Rand Paul never said he would vote to repeal the CRA and so there is no backpedaling. Either provide proof he did or withdraw your lie.
Is the Left constitutionally unable to tell the truth?" And here we have another rich item. Rand Paul invents the idea that he has been accused of seeking repeal by initiating a denial. His goal, of course, is to make people think his previously uttered bad ideas are not really all that bad. When someone refers to this as backpedaling, the tea baggers accuse us of lying because Rand Paul never said it. Well played. What a bunch of schmucks. You can see this comment and blog post at the same place as the others: Here

Sat, 22 May 2010 10:04:24 EST

"Ultimately a private property right is only meaningful if you can get your society to help you protect it. But of course people can and do argue about what sorts of private property rights we SHOULD have, and so you shouldn�t confuse the normative and descriptive questions." Another good comment on this blog post. The blog post and comment areHere

Sat, 22 May 2010 09:40:00 EST

"I don�t think that�s the point. It�s that the very concept of �property,� so important to libertarians, is inexorably bound up with an exercise of state power. Indeed, the best definition of �property right� would be something like, one�s right to call upon the state�s exercise of force to exclude others. Unlike liberty, which you can at least say exists without the state, property depends for its very existence upon the state and its exercise of force.

This inevitably means that any attempt to define property rights devolves into a question of describing the legitimate purposes to which the state�s use of force. And so with discrimination, you can have the state bring its force down on the side of segregation/racism, or on the side of open access and equality. There is no neutral, non-ideological position here, as libertarians like Paul would like to believe." This is a comment on a blog post about Rand Paul. I think it's very smart. The blog and comment are Here