More Utterly Non-Shocking Conservative Wankery

So, an article in today’s Washington Times highlights the utter douchebaggery going on in Congress.  Shortly put,

More than a dozen Republican lawmakers, while denouncing the stimulus to the media and their constituents, privately sent letters to just one of the federal government’s many agencies seeking stimulus money for home-state pork projects.

Now, bear in mind that these are but a few letters sent to just one fed agency (USDA) and discovered via FOIA.  I can only  imagine how many other such letters were sent to DOE, DOT, DHS…

I know I am probably not the only one to be utterly unsurprised by this hypocritical bullshit. Not even to hear dear Lameass Alexander is amongst this esteemed group.  Certainly not shocked to see good ol’ Joe “YOU LIE!” Wilson is on the list. These are, after all, politicians.  If they were cheesy glittering vampires, then money is their pasty-faced virgin.

I was somewhat surprised, however, to read that these secret money grabs were totally in line with a virulent anti-stimulus stance.  And of course we can thank Joe Wilson for clarifying the issue for us:

“Congressman Wilson’s position on the stimulus bill is consistent,” said spokeswoman Pepper Pennington. She said Mr. Wilson opposed the stimulus as a “misguided spending bill,” but once it passed, he wanted to make sure South Carolina residents “receive their share of the pie.”

So Screamy Joe has just effectively pointed out for us the real-life application of the ‘Can’t Lose’ objection.  What this means is that an attorney can rant and scream and rail against something that is actually factually or procedurally or legally correct – thus the client thinks that he/she is REALLY getting their money’s worth, what with all the ranting/screaming/railing, despite the fact that the ranting attorney (and judge and bailiff and clerks and indeed all attorneys in the court) knows full fucking well that:
  1. there is only ONE possible outcome,
  2. nothing you do will change (1),
  3. but because your enemy supports (1), you must oppose it,
  4. which also means you have to convince your constituency (or client) that (1) is EVIL and you are GOOD for opposing (1), when in reality
  5. your constituents (clients) will actually benefit from (1), and
  6. they will receive these benefits no matter how big of jackass you are.

Have Your Cake and Action Figure, Too...

Stacked, Packed, and Ready to Attack: PR 7.3

Hello pretty people!!! I need to exorcise the stank of Rush “Tater Tot” Limbaugh from my homepage, so I thought, what BETTER than a flood of PR snark?!? Join me and my dear lovely ladyfriends Big Red and Iris Tramm as we tap a box and hash out WTF happened last week on PR…

Hey females. Sorry it took me so long to get my shit together and convene this confabulousness. Anyhow, how are your nachos? More chili? And what the hell do you think about last week’s PR?

Big Red:  I cannot believe there was any question about who should go home between the four designers declared the worst scores (although I will completely disagree about whether those were, in fact, the worst designs).  I’m am nauseatingly HORRIFIED about who the winner was.  Wtf?  I’ll say it again with emphasis:  WTF!?!?!?!  I swear to Dog that I thought the winner was going to be the loser.  I’m completely shocked. That 80s-inspired ridiculous monstrosity of a coat was one of the most unwearable designs I’ve ever seen.  Street-chic circa 1990, MAYBE.

And their “look for less”???  No normal sized woman wants a dress with that much volume below the boobs.  Seriously, both teams that had the “best” designs were what I would have said were either the hideously awful worst or a complete snore.    Last week’s “winner” was about the most unfair, just plain wrong decision I think I’ve seen in the history of PR.

And Ping….Ahhhhh…Ping.  While her design was less awful than her past two designs, I think Ping needed to go because it was very clear she just doesn’t have the technical skills.  How can you come on a design show and not know how to sew?  (I love how Jesse said he was just trying to rein in the crazy).  Jesse didn’t throw her under the bus completely (which he could have) but he did, rightfully so, indicate she doesn’t know what she is doing.  And the model backed him up.  Good.  I don’t know how the judges could have possibly thought there was another option for auf’ing.  (And Emilio comparing Ping and Jesse to Ricky and Lucy is an insult to Ricky and Lucy).

That said, I admired how Seth Aaron (WTF kind of name is Seth Aaron, though) stood behind Anthony and the design; he said, well, it wasn’t my design or vision but I worked hard on it and I stand by it.  I didn’t like their yellow/black dress (mostly because personally I think that color combo is just too reminiscent of a bumble bee), but I didn’t hate it as much as the judges did.   And while I thought their “look for less” outfit was a bit matronly, I didn’t think it looked cheap; it just looked like something an aging dowager would wear to a dinner party.  And I think Anthony could be the new bring-the-crazy ratings draw.

I’m also frequently distracted by how much that Maya looks like Christina Ricci.  Jay, stop showing your waxed chest and stop relying on your immunity when you have a partner whose continued presence very well could depend upon your effort.

And again, the challenges…..Lifetime needs to hire the Bravo creative team.  where is the challenge here?  make a couture dress?  with more money than we’ve ever given contestants?  And then make a look for less?  as a team?  Seriously?  That is the best you can come up with?  I think the three of us could come up with FAR better challenges than this…

Iris Tramm:  I’m officially calling it.  Shark, jumped.  Seriously.  I can’t take anymore of these stupid design “challenges”.  All of them get scare quotes heretoforward unless I see some corn husks incorporated into a dress pronto.  Here’s some money, A LOT of money, go make a garment.  C’mon, STOP!  This isn’t interesting.  This time there wasn’t even a gratuitious mud field, just money and Mood. Remember the last time they made the designers do couture?  They flew them TO FRANCE.  To consult with CATHERINE MALANDRINO.  And then they had a fashion show ON A BOAT ON THE SEINE.  Lifetime needs to call up the Happy Little Elves or the Magical Little Elves or whomever it was that produced the Bravo version, because this is BORING — New York, Orange Kors, and Nina notwithstanding.

Other thoughts:

I LOVE Anthony (“Stop acting up in front of company.”), but he doesn’t have the design chops to be the next Christian Sirano.

Ping deserved the aufing.  Both garments were awful.

The winning design was well made, but WAS SPORTSWEAR, not couture.  Also made me think of Nagaina, the female cobra in Rikki Tikki Tavi.  (I know it’s horrible, colonialist dreck, but I LOVE that cartoon.  Must be the Orson Welles.)

Is there any other way to use the wall than “thoughtfully”?  Tim needs some new catchphrases.

SFL:  The winning look? I am pretty sure I couldn’t even sell that back in 1993 when I worked at Contempo Casuals. And I sold the HELL out of some white lace bike shorts back in the day. So you KNOW I had some quality ladies (and gentlemen) on my hit customer list. Other than that, maybe it’s the tequila and chili, or the fact that I waited 6 days to write this, but I can’t remember a DAMN thing. Except for Anthony and his never ending Designing Women-esque quips of awesomeness.

I CHALLENGE Lifetime to see if they can make the challenges even less challenging. And less memorable. In fact, I DARE them to try. I know they won’t disappoint us and fail to disappoint. Jerkasses took a hugely popular show with a runs-itself-to-fabulous-perfection premise and  Monsieur Gunn and La Klum – two of the most perfectly perfect people – and somehow managed to fuck it up 12 ways from Sunday until the whole thing just oozes yawn and, I don’t know, what’s the current symbol of corporate mediocrity? Lunchables?


Maybe this will make it better…

Tim Gunn Understands You

Rush Limbaugh has a Teeny Tiny Penis

For reals. EENSY – like one of those wee little baby carrots. Well,  kind of like that, but smaller and flappier.  And covered in Power Rangers stickers.

I jest. What do I know – or care – about the literal and ironic dicklessness one of America’s biggest dicks?

Yes, he is a greasy, bloated assweasel. But his “derisive intellectual weariness” schtick is really just a serious of pathetic bleats for attention, covered in a bunch of smart-sounding quips that he steals from other, far smarter people.  But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the poor guy is pretty much sans dick.

I mean, sure, there is all the drug use.  And all the jabs at women and the craven envy of men with far more power/intellect/happiness than he could even dream of having. So of course when you consider his actions, and his soft, curvy, womanly figure, it’s only natural to assume he has HPS (hidden penis syndrome) and smells like a 2-week-dead rat stuffed full of feta cheese and cabbage.

So cut the poor little not-quite-a-man some slack when he makes dumbass comments about women and/or “feminism.”  He is just a bitter, Jaba-esque sack of witless impotence and mediocrity.

Who, yes, very likely has a sad little tater tot in his pants.

Project Runway: Meh, Feh, and HOLY HELL!

So, like most people who like shiny things, fisticuffs, and the crazy, I am a PR girl. Or was, then wasn’t, and maybe kind of am again. I was, like many, nauseated about the idea of having to watch it on Lifetime, even though technically speaking I have two cats and am therefore completely eligible to watch Lifetime. And last season certainly validated all my fears about the switch. But so far this season shows a bit more promise than the last. Which isn’t to say that it is at ALL near the epic levels of awesomeness that were Seasons 2 and 4, or even the less awesome Season 5.

Here are some insights and rants to the Season 7, brought to you by SFL and my fellow PR ladyfriends, guest SFL commentators Big Red and Iris Tramm.

Welcome ladies. How the hell are you? Can I pour you a HUGE glass of wine? Good – let’s talk about…

How PR has sucked since the move to Lifetime:

Iris Tramm:  Meh.  WTF is with these lame-o challenges?  Run to Central Park and stuff some fabric in your bag and then make a design that reflects your vision as a designer.  Blech.  That’s what the freakin’ finale is for.  The run up is a whole bunch of crazy crap asking them to make outfits out of car parts, foodstuffs, and recycled garbage?  This was one of my biggest beefs with the last season (right after the almost total absence of Kors/Garcia).  Every single challenge was “make a dress out of fabric”….I fear the show has peaked.  Was LA jumping the shark?

Also, and I say this as a totally heteronormative female, but Heidi Klum is the hottest pregnant woman ever.  I don’t know why she’s not making a bijillion dollars from mom-n-baby-related endorsement deals.

This Season’ contestants and challenges:

IT:  So far, I am not impressed. [Episode 2] was another uninspired, post hoc, make-a-garment-out-of-fabric, bullshit design challenge, I do recall that.  WTF was the point of standing in a field of mud if they weren’t going to, you know, have to actually USE farm stuff for their design?  Oh, and here’s some end caps from Mood with buttons, go shopping!  In the mud field!  Whee!  Now let’s all go back to Manhattan and sew!  Why not say, look, here’s a barn and some tack.  Make a party dress!  Oh, and you can only sew with horse hairs you pull yourself from that giant Tennessee Walker Stallion galloping towards us!  Now, THAT would be interesting, yes?

I did give props to the Sconnie girl for being the only one to use an actual farm product (a potato) in her design.  Unfortunately, I don’t think the girl’s gonna go far in this competition.  Her designs are not very sophisticated (a Lanvin lover, I had hopes), and they don’t show enough of her work for me to tell whether it’s well crafted if uninspired.

Big Red:  So I’m cautiously optimistic about this year’s designers.  There is some talent, although I’m not sure on what i base that because I wasn’t overly wowed by any end results, and there is definitely some crazy for entertainment purposes (hello Ping?  hello Anthony?).  Although I also must note that I disagreed with most of what the judges said.  Ping’s [first] outfit…..Seriously?  It just looked like a bunch of fabric wrapped around her model’s body.

But the [second] challenge was again a bit of a snore; if you are going to make contestants whip up an outfit from farm materials, they could have done way better than just use a potato sack.  I’m from farm country and trust me, there are lots of “organic” materials available for construction that would have been much more interesting. I did like the Sconnie girl’s outfit, and the intriguing use of the potato to create a print that disguised the potato sack. And Jesus with the skirt that wasn’t really potato sack but just ribbons covering a potato sack… last week I liked Jesus’s brown leather look dress; well, maybe not liked but hated less than everyone else.  It was good enough for me to want to see more from him.  This week…..not so much.  I’m ready for him to go as well.


SFL: The challenges are not challenging in the least. Unless one of the contestants is my dad, and then yes, telling him to make something out of fabric would indeed be challenging. Actually, I am pretty sure that whatever it was that Ping non-sewed [in the first episode] would pretty much be what dad would make. I do think that there seems to be a LOT more talent – at least I thought so until I saw the veritable yawnfest that was the parade of WAY too crotchtacular sundresses. Ummm….call me crazy, but I don’t think that “youthful” really needs to be the sole criteria for fashion. Seriously, WTF? Are they designing for Target? Don’t get me wrong, I am a fan of the Target Designer Collaborations, but I am just NOT that interested in watching a season of cheap looking Rodarte knock-offs.

[As to episode 1] OH THE HORROR what was UP with that fakeskin tube of poop?!? He should have gone home for sheer failure to design, but I am glad chickie went home because her dress was an insult to dresses. Kind of was hoping Season 7 Cryer would go home. You know who I mean. The one that cried her way through the whole show. NO CRYING AT ALL EVER ON PR OR I WILL HATE YOU AND ALL YOU STAND FOR. She has now inherited the mesh hat of shame and I will forever refer to her as Mesh Hat #3. Also? The dude with the Gwen Stefani red zipper dress? What the hell is up with his carefully crafted “Dirty Bartender” look? Ewww…. looks like the kind of guy that takes a 16 year old to her prom when he is 26.

[As to Episode 2] I *really* could have gone the entire run of PR — from its quirk-tastic crazy beginning through the sluggish decline into mediocrity and Lifetime all the way to the inevitable end where Bachelor rejects are brought on as “celebrity” contestants and the “challenges” all involve ill-matched product placement and poledancing — without seeing 100% of a model’s ass as it awkwardly horsestomps down the runway.

Ping, generally, and her HOLY HELL MODEL ASS thing, specifically:

SFL: Ping is clearly Pingtastic. And full of what we observers would have characterized as ‘agonizing whimsy’ in another season.  During the first ep, I looked at her “creation” and thought, kind of neat, but I bet she can’t sew for shit. So, yeah, she did well on artfully draping some fabric. But this is a *DESIGN* contest. We aren’t looking for the next budding display associate for Hobby Lobby.  And it turns out, I was right.  Second ep Ping made a contractor’s belt/apron and matching roadside public service vest out of a potato sack. And by “made,” I do NOT mean “sewed” because while Ping the Faux-Arty Fairy of Layering and Nachos did many unspeakable thing to the sacks, ‘sewing’ is not one of them. I could see keeping PTFAFOLAN around for entertainment value IF she had a grasp of basic necessary skills. Like, say, sewing and covering your model’s special places. But nay. I was and remain horrified.

IT:  I didn’t like Ping’s [first] outfit either, but it was the most interesting thing out there, which isn’t saying much.  Everything else looked like something I swear I stocked when I worked the Junior Misses department at JC Penny’s in the late 80s.I do adore Ping — as a contestant.  She really shoulda been auf’d for the bareass model, though.  In fact, I think there should be an AUTOMATIC auf’ing for something like that, regardless of the aesthetics of the rest of the design.  And she was warned!  Tim made a (rather hilarious) point about the height of the runway and the angle of perspective of the judges.  (BTW, does it seem to either of you like Tim’s phoning it in these days?).

BR:  First of all, any contestant who ignores the advice of the most awesomest Tim Gunn should be auf’d based on that kind of stupidity alone (Ahem…Ping…Jesus are you listening?).  However, based on design (or lack thereof) alone, Ping should have been auf’d.  Anyone who intentionally or unintentionally sends her model down the runway with her ass hanging out, particularly after having been told “your model’s ass crack and lady bits will be more exposed than they should be”, should just be automatically disqualified.  But pursuant to Santino theory, crazy people with bad designs can stay, so long as they continue to bring the crazy/ratings.

Add to that injustice is that Ping really doesn’t know what she is doing.  I hated last week’s design, it was just fabric draped all over the contestant, but OK, whatever.  This week it looked like she glue-gunned all the potato sacks together.  She clearly doesn’t have the technical skills necessary to be a contestant; if I were a rejected wannabe contestant, I’d be furious.  As for the losing outfit, it looked ridiculously dated; I did admire how she was able to transform the fabric to actually look like denim, but then to make an ugly denim dress?  Come on.  Hello, 1990s?  But still better than Ping’s disaster.


Tim Gunn is Perfection.

Grassroots Gold Mine

“If there is any profit, the money will go toward furthering the cause of conservatism.”

Sherry Phillips, Tea Party Nation founder, on the whopping $549 it will cost a person just to get into the Teabaggin’ Clustersnuggle.  From today’s NYTimes. Note that Phillips also refused to discuss the reported $100,000.00 (yes, one hundred thousand dollars) that Palin is receiving to preach fist pump spew garbled homilies hopefully just show up speak. WTF people?

A hundred grand can do a LOT of *real* good. Hell, $549.00 can do a lot of good. You know, the kind of good that doesn’t involve shelling out one’s hard-earned dollars to be crammed in a hotel with a bunch of confused and angry white people who are being scammed by money-grubbing opportunists into thinking that the soggy chicken kiev they are eating is chock full of tasty patriotism. All while certain people are making BUCKETS and BUCKETS of money off of you.


How ‘grassroots’ is that?

Couldn’t YOU do so much more with your money? Seriously, even if charity isn’t your thing, then for the love of whatever you consider holy, KEEP your dollars and either spend them on yourself and your loved ones, or donate it to a REAL candidate of YOUR choice.

And yes, I know that not all TEAfolk are white, angry, and confused. Likewise, I know that not all white, angry, and confused people are TEAfolk. But I think we can all agree that the TEA functions aren’t exactly a shining example of irenic diversity.

You can read more about the quickly disintegrating “organized” total TEA whatever here or you can read more of my mockery on the subject of teabaggery, Palin or other such shenanigoats by pretty much picking a post at random.

No thanks. I'm married.

My Rights v. Yours

I figured if I am going to eat major crow, at least I can put on a little New Pornographers in the background. Seriously, though, I am actually surprisingly happy to write this post and thank all the people involved for hearing me out on these issues.

As any of you that actually read this blog probably witnessed the whole gun debacle, then witnessed the removal of the debacle in its entirety. People that actually know me, know that this has been a pretty upsetting experience, but after emailing at length with several people from the pro-2nd-Am side, and after a LOT of thinking on my part, I have come to a few major conclusions about the whole thing that I would like to share.

Now, I would like the anti-gun people to bear with me and really *think* about what I am writing. I know that a lot of you will TOTALLY disagree with the details of what I write, but I would like you to try to ignore the details and imagine what I posit. What I would like to do is open up a dialogue about how we fight for our rights and beliefs and WHY public perception is important. I am going to open up comments and I ask EVERYONE to keep it cordial. Learn from mine and Rob’s mistake. This means no nastiness, no threats, and, yes, no douchy personal attacks. Though, as always, you are free to swear as much as you want.

This is more or less excerpted from an email that I sent, among other people, Bob S, who was the original commenter to the gun post. I want to point out that I have apologized to Bob S via email and that Rob has apologized, as well. My reasons are explained below. Rob would like to say that he is VERY sorry for the comments he made both here and on his blog. He deeply regrets the whole thing and hopes that Bob S wasn’t negatively affected by them.  Rob absolutely never intended to follow through on any element of what he said and was just reacting out of fear. He was upset and worried because I was upset, but that is really no excuse. He should never have written those comments, or defended them and he honestly hopes that Bob S will accept his apology.

Here goes…

Bob S-

This has really given me a lot to think about – your response, some of the responses of others, and all that has transpired up until now. I plan to post parts of this email on my blog as an attempt to both reopen the discussion and to (hopefully) undo some of the damage done.

I think, up until now, I haven’t been able to look at the situation from any vantage point other than my own, which includes my own reactions to seeing some nastiness directed at me personally. Now, obviously my first several responses are not a shining example to cordial discourse. However, in general I make it a point to stay focused on the substance of the issue, and to not make any personal comments (which would include derisive comments about the person’s intellect). Though I will freely admit that sometimes I stray from this mandate.

The main problem with that, as I may have mentioned to someone else, is that I don’t really have a personal, vested interest in either side of the debate, so in participating in the debate I committed the same cardinal sin that I often rail against – namely, taking a side on a peripheral issue that necessarily argues against the rights and interests of others, when I have the luxury of not having something profound at stake.

However, if I remove all the vitriol from both sides, and think of this in terms of an argument for one’s rights v. the curtailing of those rights as a matter of public interest, I can see *exactly* what you have said regarding your cause and the damage that posts and comments like mine may have and can totally see how both the original post and the picture are offensive. Because whether or not I agree with what you believe, there is little difference between your desire to protect a basic right and my desire to protect some other basic right.

For example, I have very strong feelings about gay marriage. The basic issue, for me, is that I find it utterly repugnant for the State amend its Constitution to take away the rights of a certain group of people, simply because *some* people do not like what *other* people do behind closed doors. And in reading your comments about the damaging effects of public perception on the fight to retain rights, I realized that those are exactly the same comments that *I* make in defending the issues that are dear to me. And then I realized how I would have felt and reacted if I had come across a post that I considered derisive, insulting, and misleading on an issue I believed in.

Likewise, I would fully expect a similar onslaught from other like-minded people. And they would have responded with a similar wave of statistics, stories, appeals, and yes, nastiness and anger in their comments in defense of our viewpoint. And I would have been equally offended when the original poster shut down the debate. Because when a minority depends on the majority to “allow” them to continue to exercise their rights, the minority necessarily depends on public perception of their “agenda.”

I imagine it is much worse when the public misperception is that your group is angry, paranoid, and aggressive, regardless of how hard you work to challenge that and show it as falsely based. Probably kind of hard to do anything even remotely defensive without being seen as proving the myth. I will freely admit that when you first began commenting, I read your comments as being overly aggressive and vaguely threatening, and that this context comes from my pre/misconceptions of the very vocal wing of the pro-gun movement.

I would also like to add that, thanks to many of the comments that I received in response to my previous posts, I can say that, by and large, there are many, many articulate, passionate, educated, and polite people on the pro-gun side of the debate. I would remind readers of the number of kind comments that we had where commenters shared their stories and expressed both interest and care in the stories and situations of others. Unfortunately, as with many debates, the overwhelming good gets drowned out by a small handful of ugly, and that often what we perceive as ugly is only ugly because we don’t agree with it. Townhall debates, anyone?

I am generally only subject, as you can probably admit your initial comments reflected, the preconception that I am going to cry about the children. Or the other traditional misconceptions that liberals are unpatriotic milquetoasts.

To be fair, most of my readers are actually friends, so when they saw the deluge of comments, and the multitude of trackbacks and links, they of course saw this as an “attack” on my blog. Moreover, they will see comments made about me (and that includes comments made on other people’s blogs) as personally as they are written, and if they think these comments are unfair or cruel (and I think we can all admit that there have been some pretty nasty things written about me personally as opposed to my views), it is only because they know me. And hopefully know that I am not a mentally unbalanced gutter whore who got my JD in a Happy Meal.

But again, to be fair, I see similar behavior from people of all sides when they feel their interests are threatened. In fact, I am fairly certain I once accused mike w of acting like an a**weasel on a board about healthcare. Note, though, that this was a pro-swearing board, otherwise I wouldn’t have written it. Though it is also true that he has accused me numerous times of being absolutely void of intellectual functioning.  Anyhow, my point is that it isn’t just “gun people” who make personal attacks or are perceived to be a bit, shall we say, aggressive in defending their cause. And yes, mockery is a common response among people who feel their basic rights are being challenged.

So I just wanted to say that I see your side of the argument now. I can see how the initial post and picture are offensive, and while I can’t promise not to offend anyone in the future, I am sorry for offending you (and others). And I also see how the post, picture, and comments, as well as the removal of all the posts and comments in their entirety was unfair to your side of the argument. And I apologize for that. I probably won’t agree with your positions on things, but I certainly won’t be so callous about other people’s rights in the future.

Hope this makes sense and thanks for hearing me out. If anyone has any other thoughts, I would appreciate it. I would like to open up a debate and maybe even provide a forum where pro- and anti- can come together for a reasonable discussion. Perhaps my mandate for guns and gays will bring us all together… Or just simply alienate everyone.

My Wedding (Cup)Cakes. And Yes, I Made Them.

WIN of the Week

This week’s WIN in Random Awesomeness goes to our local Books-a-Million for this (hopefully intentional) display of sweet holiday love:

Literary Kismet

Your Lack of Adoration is Making Glenn Beck Cry

You people disgust me. Glenn Beck has given you the greatest gift of all time – and what do you ungrateful jackasses do? Ignore him. Nice work, assholes. Only 17 people in Boston and New York had the balls to stand up for what is right and good and true and wonderful.  SEVENTEEN.

Glenn Beck Cries A Lot

Where were the rest of you? What is your problem, people? And it isn’t like there was a Palin turkey shoot Glamour Shots session KKK flea market book signing anywhere nearby to distract you. What – are you just too cheap to shell out $20 for some redemption? Are you afraid that you will cry? Maybe you are one of those “Happy Holidays!” people.

No – WAIT – I know. You HATE AMERICA.


Burning Shame Award, Part II

Well, it was bound to happen. TF has been toppled from his/her throne of crazy. Check out the following back-to-back comments by the cleverly-named “Your Funny” in response to a local paper’s alarmist bullshit about Islam:

“or nuke-em all and let God sort-em out”

Your Funny | 12/8/2009 – 8:30 AM –

“time for us to deport all finatical muslims who believe we are all infidel’s and should be be-headed,close and tighten our boarders,and stop these oil-wars.Afghanistan: Hope we get out of their.!! since war and invasion is all they know.The British tried to settle Afghanistan,the Russians tried,neither could do it. don’t know if we can either..”

Your Funny | 12/8/2009 – 8:27 AM

The Lady's Not For Burning


Adventures in Local Bigotry: Burning Shame Award of the Week

At first I was going to blog this as the Fail of the Week. But then I realized it is only MONDAY. And I also realized that it just isn’t fair to the rest of the world to let East Tennessee carry all the Fail. So, in honor of East Tennessee’s commitment to keepin’ it klassy, I would like to introduce you to my new award category:


Which is based on this charming photo:

The Lady's Not For Burning

And of course, our first winner comes fresh from the comments section of the online Kingsport Times-News.

Today’s topic – Muslims. Or muslin. Sometimes it is hard to tell the difference between a human and a bolt of cloth. Tough times – thank goodness we have the Kingsport Times-News – solid bastion of impartial journalism – to let us know:

Tennessee activists warn churchgoers Muslims are trying to destroy America

A belief that Muslims are out to destroy the American way of life is gaining a foothold in some Christian and Jewish circles in Nashville. The movement spreads its message through films, books and the Internet. Its sentiment: Islam is an evil religion rooted in hatred and nurtured by violence. Some churches have gotten involved, hosting viewings of movies that alert Jews and Christians of the perceived dangers worldwide. One film, produced by a local filmmaker, warns that a second Holocaust is imminent if Americans do not stand united politically with Israel.

Now, Kingsport just ran the above text with a link to the real article Is Islam a Threat to America? The full article ran in the Tennessean and, despite the HORRIBLE title, the Tennessean showed pretty clearly that the people and groups behind this bullshit are a bunch of freaking crazy political whackjobs who don’t know what the fuck they are talking about.

But leave it to the ever shitty Kingsport paper to give a short blurb that totally misses the mark and makes this lunacy seem both legit AND homespun-awesome. And basically suggests that its readership get on board. Which, let’s be honest, most of the readers of said shitty paper don’t need any further encouragement, but still… Call me old-fashioned, but I think it is nice when a newspaper tilts more towards “informative” than “persuasive.”

But at least one commenter did not need any persuadin’ on the matter. Let me introduce you to TF, the first-ever recipient of the newly minted SFL Burning Shame Award:

Yes I have spent 3 month with the Muslins and have had 7-8 in my home and had contact over the last 12 years on a weekly email, one told me ” if Michelangelo was around in my life time I would kill him for making a naked statue of my David ” and he was as serious as could be. That is the main reason they hate the US people is because of our life style and same in Europe. They birth about 5 times as many babies as all other religions and that is how they are going to take over in time to come. You need to wake up and get to know your maker!


« Older entries Newer entries »