Thursday, March 31, 2011

Commie Bastards and Fascist Pigs

In a grand stroke of naïveté on my part, I started tooling around some liberal forums to see what kind of discussion I could get myself into.  Yes, yes, I was trying to promote my blog as well, but that’s okay (because it’s me, right?).

I have to say that at the very least I was pleased to not be made fun of for my choice of words in my posts, but the atmosphere was still not very welcoming.  The article in question was about how the Republicans in Florida are trying to pull a court-packing scheme similar to FDR’s in the ‘40s.  I agreed with the liberals on this forum that it was stupid in the ‘40s and it’s stupid now, and the Republicans down there deserve whatever repudiation they receive.

We quickly diverged in thought, though, when one of them so matter-of-fact-like called the Republicans Fascists.  And it was either he, or another poster, that then went on to say that we’re living in a Fascist society.

"OMG! the things I would do to
Nancy Pelosi . . . "
 In college I had a lot of interest in Fascist, and more generally totalitarian, societies.  By no means am I any sort of expert on the subject, but I do know what Fascism is, and we have plenty examples from fairly recent history (i.e. within the last 100 years) of what Fascist societies look like.  Recalling the likes of Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini, I think it’s safe to say that America, although not perfect, is not a Fascist society.

One guy presented me with a 14-point list that described the characteristics of Fascism.  I’m not going to say his list was bullshit, because it did accurately describe some of the elements of Fascism.  His list, however, seemed to be an incredibly over-generalized description of Fascism.  This list basically made it seem that nearly every country on this planet is a Fascist regime.  For example: rampant cronyism and corruption; controlled mass media; religion and government intertwined; disregard for human rights.

Tell me, what nation on earth is not guilty of more than one of those?  Does this mean that they’re all Fascist regimes?  I seriously doubt that.  What floored me is the whole “disregard for human rights,” thing.  I mean, isn’t Obama bombing Libya right now to protect civilians from Gadhafi?

After I expressed this idea, the guy told me that those were all “exceptions,” and that most of my examples were “weak.”  And then they all informed me that it’s just Republicans that are Fascist, and that their state governments, not the entire country, are Fascist.  The one that made me laugh the hardest was the “controlled mass media,” example.  Bill Maher called Sarah Palin a cunt on television.  Did he get dragged out into the streets and shot?  And look what happened to a poor bastard blogger in Bahrain.
Well, if Republicans are Fascist, then Democrats are Communists.  What these fools fail to realize is that the opposing philosophies of America’s political parties are toned down versions of their extremes.  What’s worse is that they fail to realize that they’re no different than the Conservative crazies who claim that Democrats are conspiring to subvert liberty, and that Liberals are all morons who “don’t listen to logic.”

"OMG! the things I would do to
John Boehner . . . "
 My point with all this is: get a fucking grip.  We’re not Fascist, we’re not Socialist.  Politicians are not trying to subvert liberty, they’re merely trying to get reelected.  We seriously need to stop pretending that the horses we back in government are all modern day Cincinnati (that’s the genitive of Cincinatus, which in this context is meant to express plurality) and realize that they are men and women, like you and me, who are trying to do what they think is best for the country.

Yes, we should always be vigilant to totalitarian machinations.  However, do you really think that there are two huge conspiratorial groups, disguised as political parties, who are constantly trying to subvert liberty yet failing hard core to do it at every turn?  Really?

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

"Burn her anyway!!!"

1:30 for the line that inspired the title.

I used to be pretty set on how I thought about the death penalty.  My world-view was never really simplistic enough to believe that “eye for an eye,” was morally right, but I always thought that if the crime was horrific enough then the person who committed it deserved to die if that was his or her sentence.
Albert Camus . . . he love me,
he loves me not . . .
Thanks to author Albert Camus, and more recently death row inmate Troy Davis, I now have a shitty crisis of conscience over the whole damn issue.  I know, I know, I’m not as “progressive,” as perhaps I should be.  My heart doesn’t bleed blue donkeys, nor have I never been intimate with a tree.  But for anyone who actually gives this issue some thought, it’s not so easy to take a logical stand on it without looking at least a little stupid.

So here’s my problem: in my heart I believe that the most vicious murders deserve to die, but I can’t help but feel that logically, and morally, it’s wrong to condemn them to death.  Camus mentions that it’s pretty ridiculous that we flawed humans get to determine which other flawed humans get to live or die.

I mean if murder is premeditated and has some sort of passion behind it, then how is the death penalty not murder?  There’s a date set, the method is predetermined, and the target is specific; and although the people actually doing it might not have any passion behind it, the family of the killer’s victim certainly feel pretty strongly.  They might not be able to kill him themselves, but the state is doing it for them.  Camus acknowledged that there are some people who probably just shouldn’t be alive; that they are beyond rehabilitation and are more like animals than humans.  We all know, however, that that’s not the case for every guy on death row.
About to get fragged.

Take Troy Davis for example.  This poor bastard has been sitting on death row since ’91, and even now that 7 out of the 9 people who witnessed against him have since recanted their testimonies, his stay of execution is being denied.  What’s even better is that he was only convicted on those testimonies.  There was no physical evidence—no DNA, no finger prints, no weapon—to convict him, so they went solely on eye-witness accounts.

And to make this even more fucked up, the Supreme Court has apparently shit their principles all over the floor.  They overturned the appeal because Davis has not been able to provide enough evidence that proves his innocence.  I’m no damn legal expert or anything, but in America aren’t we all innocent until proven guilty?  Isn’t the burden of proof of guilt upon the state?  In this case it looks like as a majority of the state’s evidence that originally convicted him is now in serious question.  They said that only one of the recantations is really “meaningful,” but doesn’t this at least deserve a second look?

I’m not going to go as far as to say this is racially motivated, after all it is the liberal US Supreme Court that turned down the appeal.  What if he didn’t do it?  Should we really risk allowing a potentially innocent man to be put to death?  Is that justice?

The new Supreme Court.  Currently awaiting confirmation
from the Senate.

Please feel free to comment on this.  I realized yesterday that I had anonymous commenting turned off.  So if you want to comment but don’t want to set up a google account then go ahead.  You can now post comments as anonymous, and just leave your name or whatever if you want your identity to be recognized.

Discussion is always encouraged here.  Read my comment policy if you don’t believe me!  =D

Tuesday, March 29, 2011

Obama says testing is boring, Elton John is gay

I didn't vote for the guy, but I'm glad he finally said what everyone has been thinking since, oh I don't know, forever.  News flash everyone: testing makes learning boring.

I know!  I can't fucking believe it!  This entire time I was just duped into thinking that taking tests in school was better than shit like video games, or maybe even a pair of tits.  Finally, we have a visionary like Obama to remove the veil and show us that standardized testing is retarded.

All sarcasm aside, well maybe just most of it aside, Obama did make some good points on this.  Ever since Every Kid Dragged Along (No Child Left Behind), I've been telling people that more standardized testing in education is not the answer.  Like the president alluded to, standardized testing mostly just assesses how well a kid can take a standardized test.

I mean seriously, how much do you remember from the SAT?  Or how about the Proficiency Test (dating myself)?  I remember specifically that there was a citizenship portion on the Ohio Proficiency Test, and I know for fact that most people I've talked to don't know a god damned thing about American Government.  But they were tested on it, right?

Although I want to have Obama's oreo babies for shitting on standardized tests, I don't fully agree with everything he said here.  He mentioned something about interests having to do with education.  There's this movement in education, and I think it might have started in the 50's, where we all of the sudden need to play to kids' interests in school to get them to learn.

"I wonder if Boner plays WoW.  He's
probably a  pussy ally pally. Or a
drood . . ."
Question: is that how education used to be?  I mean, was that how education was for Aristotle?  Cicero?  Locke?  Edison?  Einstein?  Education for them was fairly rigid, and they are some of the greatest minds that have ever graced the planet.  Will there ever be another Aristotle or Locke?  Probably not.  And you know why?  Because teachers are buying into some huge shit-sandwich spawned by some theorist assholes that says kids need to be "entertained," while they learn, or they'll just tune it out.  Instead of stressing to kids that it's important to be able to critically think, we have to cater to their lack of discipline just to get them to pass to the next grade.

"Edutainment . . . " that's a dirty word in real intellectual circles.  It's like shouting "I fucked a gutter whore," in the middle of Mass, right before the priest washes his hands.  The problem isn't that education is boring, the problem is that American tard-culture is impressing upon them the idea that it is boring.  Video games, partying, and facebook are all far more entertaining, and therefore more important than education.  What is the product of that?  Jersey Shore. 

I got this from an ad about the horiffic consequences 
of Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.

Check it: education is fun when you realize it gives you the tools to make fun of idiots.  If you get a good education, you get to guffaw at the morons who protest funerals, or the dipshits that think egalitarianism originated in, and is exclusive to, French culture.  We don't need to make education "fun," we just need to make it valuable again.  We need to remind kids that being a fucking moron sucks.  I know it's hard to do that when fucktards get rewarded for being wastes of brain matter.  Paris Hilton.  Jessica Simpson.  Snookie.  The Situation.  Anyone who's ever been on an MTV reality show.

That's part of the reason I write and I make fun of idiots.  We need to be reminded that they're out there, waiting for their next reward for not being able to think.  Someone needs to remind them that they are, in fact, worthless and only contribute to the moronification (Orwell would be proud) of American society.

Monday, March 28, 2011

WTF is a patriot anyway?

"Git outta here with yer fancy werds you fag-lovin',
anti-Amurrican member of the Leftist muhchine!"
(not a direct quote, but they did make fun of me
for using big words)
This one is dedicated to the retards I encountered this weekend while roaming political forums looking for good discussion.  Someone mentioned that the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell was a way for Obama to remove "pro-American, patriotic anti-leftists" from the military.  I sarcastically quipped "So in order to be patriotic, pro-American, and anti-leftist you have to think that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to serve openly in the military?"  I was immediately branded an unpatriotic leftist who hates his country and only focuses on the negative.

I can’t help but laugh whenever someone accuses another person of being "unpatriotic," whenever their views are divergent. What’s even more laughable is that the people who throw that little word around are usually persons who have never even read either the Declaration of Independence or the U.S. Constitution.

"But Jack, who cares if they’ve read those documents? They are null and void because the men who took part in writing them were slaveholders!" Yes, Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, but that doesn’t mean that what he said is any less true. So assuming that the Constitution and Declaration contain values that we can consider American (I would argue that they are universal values that are not specifically American, but that’s a whole other essay) lets use those values to determine what it means to be patriotic. 

Dan Rather is not amused.

It might come as a surprise to my conservative readers (if there are any readers at all, let alone conservative) but I am actually a Republican. I might be a bit too liberal for some of my Republican contemporaries, but that’s okay because most of them are politically retarded anyway. Although I am a Republican, I shit myself in disbelief when my Democrat enemies are charged with being unpatriotic.

Now that’s not to say that none of them are unpatriotic. Some of them may hate their country and want it to burn. But what the hell does it even mean to be a patriot? I think I’ve mentioned it before, but my idol Camus said something along the lines that it’s holding our country to our highest standards.

What the hell does that even mean?

Well, for starters it means that you have to understand  the fact that what’s best for our country doesn’t always have to do with positive material gain. Just because something might win a war faster, or protect us better from violent death, or make us more economically prosperous doesn’t mean that it’s what is best for us. Take, for example, the Patriot Act. Sure, it might help prevent terrorist attacks and save lives if the FBI were able to do whatever it wanted without any warrants (over-exaggeration) but is sacrificing privacy really a good thing?

"But sometimes it’s necessary to sacrifice some rights and liberties to spare people from violent death!" You’re actually right on that one, HTNS. But check it: being a patriot doesn’t mean you want to save lives. Being a patriot means you want to save the soul of America. What is the soul of America? It’s the body of ideas that we uphold as being true for every man, woman, and child on the planet. It’s the notion that people everywhere ought to be free to live their lives in whatever way they choose.

Don’t you think the Democrats want that? Don’t you think that freedom and liberty matter to them as well? Or do you honestly think they are trying to destroy the country? Because I have come to the conclusion that water-boarding is wrong, does that mean I’m not a patriot? Nationalism bears the mantra of "my country, right or wrong." Patriotism means that you love your country so much that you want what is best for it’s body and soul.

So if you think that being a patriot means you never dissent, or that you believe your country has acted unjustly in some way, then please stop engaging in political discussion. You’re comprehension of intangible ideas is woefully inadequate, and your contributions to anything political serve only to make everyone dumber. So thank you to everyone who proved to me that most Americans are anti-intellectual dipshits who prefer ideological circle-jerks to meaningful discussion.

One of them informed me that "egalitarianism" is
a purely French idea . . .

Dumbass Idea of the Week

I'm not sure whether to laugh or slit my wrists.  She said it was her dream to have a wedding cake that looked like her, but I wonder if she meant that she literally had a dream about it.  Perhaps she should have dreamt she had a thinner waist-line, or maybe a brain.

"Ten more years of this . . ."

Sunday, March 27, 2011

Think you're special because you're an atheist?

Really?  This is your best argument?
Since it's Sunday, the next group of people I'm going to alienate is atheists.  Well, at least the arrogant atheists that think they're smarter than theists just because they don't believe in God.

Now, I’m not going to go so far as to call you stupid, because most atheists tend to be fairly intelligence people.  I am, however, going to say that many of you are unimaginative, arrogant assholes.

Let me pose to you a simple question.  Do you really think that human understanding and perception is the absolute pinnacle of thought and existence?  I mean is your argument simply that because we humans can’t possibly understand something that exists beyond our perception that God can’t possibly exist?

How does anything exist?  Where do we come from and what’s the origin of the universe?  Can the universe truly be infinite?  Why would you just assume that because something seems far fetched, or not provable by science, that it just can’t possibly exist?

With the exception of the last question I posed, those questions are ones to which we have no definitive answers.  Why?  Because we’re human, and despite our amazing capacity to reason and understand the world around us, we do not have the means to answer those questions.

When you make the decision to be an atheist, a part of what makes you human dies.  You inevitably limit your imagination, and without an imagination you’re stunted in your intellectual growth.  You might scoff at me and think I’m stunted in my intellectual growth because I allow myself to believe in a creator that exists beyond the physical realm of reality as we perceive it, but I know that’s not true because I’m probably about seventeen times smarter than most atheists.  Oh, and my superior intellect has nothing to do with my belief in God.

Completely hypocritical and counter-productive of me,
but I couldn't resist.
Whether or not you believe in God doesn’t have any reflection on your level of intelligence.  Some of the greatest minds in history believed in God, and they could run intellectual circles around any atheist.  If you’re content to limit your mind simply because the concept of God is something you can’t understand, then please by all means continue to be a close-minded douche.

Now I’m not trying to support the commonly accepted concept of God, that he’s a being who constantly imposes his will upon existence.  And I’m certainly not trying to give credence to moral hypocrisy.  I do agree that most God-fearing people are only moral so that they don’t get eternally punished.  However, when you ask yourself the question "where did this existence begin," you’re left in wont, because you hit a wall that science cannot penetrate.  You’re left only able to answer "I don’t know."  Your certainty that there is no god is just as bad as the certainty that many Christians have that there is a god.

I hate to break it to you, but when the human mind has reached its capacity for understanding you have to logically conclude that there are things that exist even though you can’t understand it.

Saturday, March 26, 2011

I'm about to exercise my rights all over your face

This will definitely win souls for Christ.
So I’ve been feeling bad lately for shitting all over so many groups of people for various reasons.  I’m going to assume that I haven’t alienated everyone in the world yet, and that if I have alienated you I’m going to hope against hope that your friends who read this stuff will urge you to read this.

Pointless introductions aside, I got the inspiration to write this little literary gem when I read about the Westboro Baptists and how the
Supreme Court ruled in their favor in a recent case against them, citing the First Amendment.  At first I was going to make an eloquent post explaining, point-by-point with logical examples, how those brand of Christians are retarded assholes.  But then I started reading Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution, and how invective was a popular form of political literature at the time.

So, pious members of the Westboro Baptist Church, were you all born retarded or is that something you developed over time?  Please explain to me how you can rationalize this: Jesus comes to earth to tell us that God loves all of us, and that we should love our neighbors as we love ourselves, but you think it’s a good idea to shit all over grieving families?  Do you really think that’s something that Jesus would have done, you arrogant assholes?
Well at least we know there won't be a
shortage of morons to make fun of
in the future.

Whenever you shit all over these people who are grieving over the loss of their dear loved ones, you’re committing something that for ages has been considered to be an action of the lowest degree of human douchebaggery.  Soiling the memory of the dead, which is what you’re doing, has been considered wrong since humans had a sense of right and wrong. Don’t believe me?  Go read the Iliad. I know it’s not the bible, nor is it in plain language that you’d be smart enough to understand, but it does tell us something about what it means to be human.  And it does illustrate how you are all complete shit heads for shitting on the memory of the dead.

"Well, you’re a hypocrite for two reasons.  First, you’re shitting all over the first amendment, and second you’re being just as mean and spiteful as they are.  Would Jesus be so mean and spiteful?"  Thank you, again, HTNS. 

First, I’m not shitting all over the First Amendment.  They are perfectly welcome to be the biggest cock suckers that they can be.  But just because we have the freedom to say or do something, does that mean we should do it?  Are they really winning over souls for Christ by painting themselves to be insensitive morons?  I know I'm not exactly winning over people with the way I present these ideas, but at least I'm not at funerals with picket signs that say "God hates retarded assholes that can't think."

"They're gonna protest what?  *sigh*"
And secondly, yes I’m being mean and spiteful, and no Jesus would not go about it this way.  I do believe, however, that showing people how stupid they are was totally Jesus’ style.  I mean, all he did was walk around and tell the Jewish clergy that they were giant dumbasses because of their retarded interpretation of their religion.

At any rate, I am just exercising my right as an American citizen.  Just as you are free to be as inhumane as possible and shit on your fellow man while he is in mourning, I am free to shit on retarded bigots such as yourselves who have a child’s understanding of God and religion.  God Bless Amurrica!

Friday, March 25, 2011

Julien Assange: The Greatest Man in the History of Everything, Ever

Unfortunately, sarcasm doesn’t come out well in text.  So just to make sure we’re on the same page here, I was being completely sarcastic with that headline.  Next to Michael Moore, Assange is probably one of the world’s biggest douchebags.
"So . . . many . . . penises . . ."

I get it: there’s shady shit that goes down in government, corporations, or whatever, and he wants to get it all out there.  Do I have a problem with him leaking shit about malfeasance on the part of a government or corporation?  No.  Do I have a problem with him leaking classified government information and diplomatic cables?  Of course I do.

Diplomatic cables are classified and not open to public consumption for a reason:  government officials need real insight to diplomatic situations.  Apparently, our ambassador to Mexico has resigned because his revelation that Mexican security forces are engaged in a perpetual penis measuring contest was released, and the Mexican government doesn’t trust him anymore.

I guess they’re pissed because our official position is that they’re doing a good job.  Some people have been shocked over how candid our diplomats are in their assessments, and on the surface something like this looks pretty embarrassing.  But if those who think it’s embarrassing do a reality check for one second, then they’ll realize how hypocritical they’re being.

Question:  If a friend of yours asks you how you feel about someone you hate, and you tell your friend how you really feel about that person, what’s the likelihood that you would say exactly how you feel to that person’s face?  “Dude, you fucking suck and I hate you.”  That’s not very diplomatic, is it?  And how pissed would you be if you wrote an email about that guy, and then someone who you thought you could trust posted it on facebook for everyone to see?

It's photos like this that remind me why
I avoid having my picture taken.

 Personally, I’d be pretty fucking pissed.  I should be able to choose which of my ideas are made public.  I mean I’m using a pen name so that I’ll face as little reprisal for my vitriol as possible.  I like to think that people value my opinions because they know I’m not bullshitting them.  And I trust them to not blab my shit all over the world when they ask for my opinion on something in confidence.  So what good would a diplomat’s opinion be if he or she has to hold back knowing that asshats like Assange are always lurking to expose their private communiqués?  

Should we hold them to a “higher standard,” just because they are diplomats?  Maybe, but should you also be held to a higher standard?  Is it wrong to call a foreign official an asshole, but okay to call anyone else in any other circumstance a douchebag?  Does anyone honestly think that the diplomats of other nations think the sun shines out of our collective ass?

I wonder if Assange would be okay with someone hacking his email and posting every email he ever wrote on the internet.  Oh, but that’s an invasion of privacy, right?

Please, by all means: Be Gay

There’s two sides to the question of gay marriage, political and religious.  I intend to shit on both of them.

So enough with the formalities: homosexuality is not immoral, gay marriage can’t exist, and gay couples should be allowed to enter into legally recognized unions in which the community at-large deems them a couple who have committed themselves to each other.

Why does gay sex have to be immoral?  Because Leviticus says so?  Leviticus is also down with having slaves, and divorcing your wife if she is not “good enough,” for you.  So is homosexuality immoral because it’s gross?  I admit that I’m not down with dude-on-dude action.  I’m pretty damn okay with girl-on-girl action as long as they are both hot.  But does that mean that it’s okay for two hot chicks to make out, but it’s horribly immoral for two dudes to make out?  I mean, there’s plenty of sexual stuff out there that I think is gross, but does that make it immoral?

Maybe God should have been more explicit with sex rules.  Donkey punches are okay as long as you don’t knock her out.  The Dirty Sanchez is never okay.  The Phantom is okay only if she’s in to that stuff.  Okay, so God did say “bros don’t fuck bros,” which is explicit, but he also supposedly told the Jews to kill men, women, and children so they would stay “pure,” and unchallenged in their faith.  But don’t you see how retarded it becomes when you start splitting hairs like this?

We’re human, and because we’re human, most of us are going to be attracted to some freaky shit.  True, some people aren’t attracted to anything freaky but that’s because they’re boring.  However, being boring doesn’t make you pious.  It just makes you boring.

"Thou shalt fuck each other, but please, NO Cleveland
Steamers.  For that is just fucked up."
The Catholic in me firmly believes that there is absolutely nothing wrong with fucking.  I don’t think it even matters that you be married.  Is this license for promiscuity?  No.  I just think it’s retarded to believe that God made us into sexual beings just so that we could never have sex without feeling guilty.  Face it: if you think homosexuality is morally wrong, it’s only because you think it’s gross.  And if you think it’s wrong because the bible says so, go read the bible again and tell me, with a straight face, that there are zero logical inconsistencies.

As for the political implications, it’s probably wrong that a group of people are not allowed to be legally recognized as a united couple.  Who’s to say that true love and devotion can’t be found between two dudes?  “But Jack, if we allow gay marriage then what’s next?  Legalized bestiality marriages?  Polygamy?  You’re promoting the dissolving of our moral fabric!”

Oh hypothetical nay-sayer (HTNS), you never cease to remind me that humans can be incredibly retarded.  Let’s be real here for a second.  Marriage, gay or straight, shares one thing in common: two consenting adults coming together in matrimony.  Last I checked, Fido isn’t a human and cannot, therefore consent to anything.  And secondly, polygamy is not marriage.  They might call their whores “wives,” but they’re really just prostitutes that they don’t have to pay.  So if gay marriage is legal everywhere, what do we tell the inevitable retards that want to marry animals or several people?  We tell them to fuck off.  Fair?  Maybe not.  Reasonable?  Absolutely.

Natalie and Mila making out: Proof that there is a God.

Should there be an amendment to the constitution that makes gay marriage legal everywhere?  I'm not sure.  Why?  Because the constitution doesn't govern things like marriage.  Like a drivers license, marriage and its requirements are left up to the states.  Should every state legally recognize same-sex unions?  Absolutely.  If the vote came to my state, I’d vote “yes” all the way. 

As liberal and progressive as this may sound, I would seriously appreciate it if dudes would keep their public make-out sessions to a minimum.  But as for the ladies, you keep on truckin’.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

It's all your fault

Two New York social workers are preparing to be molested by the righteous fist of justice for their apparent lack of oversight in an abuse case.  To quickly summarize for those who don’t want to read the article, a four year old girl was tied down to a bed, beaten, and poisoned with prescription drugs for an unspecified number of months by her mother. 

Reality pwning an idealist.
What bothered me about this whole ordeal is how vague the details seem to be.  That could be because the trial hasn’t begun, or whatever, but I’m still a bit bothered by it.  I don’t have any experience as a social worker, but when I think of social workers I think of idealists who’ve been forced to see the world for what it is, rather than for what they want it to be. 

For the sake of imagery, picture a dude that’s really hopeful—bright eyed, eager to change the world because he truly believes that humans are good at heart—and then he is suddenly awakened to the shittiness of humanity by a swift kick in the nuts.  We hear about the horrors of social work all the time:  that it’s a soul sucking endeavor that smashes the hopes of even the most hopeful.

Why does social work do that to people?  Well, because the situation really is hopeless.  These poor bastards are given gigantic caseloads of abused children, and we expect them to devote 100% of their energy to each child.  Sure looks like the guy was negligent and was trying to cover his tracks, but let’s ask an honest question:  would anyone have been able to save the child?

Yeah that sounds like a fairly pessimistic attitude, but it’s a real question we have to ask.  This child’s mother and grandmother were obviously completely fucked in the head, so I’d wager that it was only a matter of time before they murdered the poor kid.  Had the guy been visiting more often, they probably would have just killed her in a quicker fashion, or they would have done their best to hide the abuse.

"It's all your fault, asshole."
I get this feeling that there’s a growing trend in America to blame as many people as possible when bad shit happens.  We’re turning into a culture of maximum accountability, and I’m not sure if that’s a good thing.  Do I think we should let morons run rampant everywhere, free to fuck shit up with reckless abandon?  No.  But I am afraid of a society in which there is zero tolerance for failure.

“But Jack, you insensitive asshole, a child is dead because of this guy’s negligence!”  Maybe, but there’s also a child dead somewhere despite the vigilant supervision of a bleeding heart social worker.  Over the next few months, it might be revealed that Damon Adams only had a caseload of like five kids, and that he really was a negligent douche.  But my guess is that he’s like every other social worker out there: one human tasked with overseeing the wellbeing of over thirty suffering children, who knows that despite his best efforts most of them are hopelessly stuck with the shitty hand they’ve dealt.

Someone in the article mentioned that this law-suit could have the adverse effect of turning people off to social work.  I don’t blame them.  Why work in a hopeless situation with the added fear that you may be prosecuted for your failures?

I’ve got children of my own, so when I read about these stories I get just as incensed as the next compassionate guy, but when a sick fuck commits a crime lets stop laying blame on as many people as possible just to make ourselves feel better.  Let’s give this guy a fair shake before we start demanding that he get sent to federal-pound-me-in-the-ass prison (Office Space) for seven years.

Crucify Him!!!

"Seriously: What the fuck?"

Ron Paul—a funny Libertarian in the guise of a Republican—and Dennis Kucinich—a weirdo—are both calling for the impeachment of the hailed Second Coming of Christ, President Obama over this whole Libya business.  I don’t like hanging on one specific topic for too long, but I gave you a sound medical PSA straight from the Center for Douchebag Control (CDC) so you’ll just have to deal with it.

Should Obama be impeached for his use of force in Libya?  At first I guffawed, as I always do when the big I-word is dropped, but after doing a little research I’m actually ambivalent about this one.  According to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which is actual Congressional legislation, the President does not need Congressional approval to use military force.  He doesn’t even need a declaration of war.  The President can use force for up to 60 days without a single supportive voice in Congress.
Well that’d be all fine and dandy for Obama if that was the only provision in the resolution.  Although the President can use force for up to 60 days without a Congressional declaration of war, the President is required to submit a report to the speaker of the house giving his reasons for using force within 48 hours of the initiation of hostilities.  John Boehner said that he didn’t receive that notification.


 So what the hell, Obama?  I mean how hard would it have been to shoot Boehner an email?  “Johnny Boner, going to face-rape Gadhafi tomorrow.  Enjoy your recess.  G2G, ROFL!”

Now, the resolution says the President has to consult Congress about it, but it never says that he needs consent as long as hostilities stop within 60 days.  And it never says what exactly “consult,” means.  From the legislation, we can infer that the report is considered the consultation, since that report is the only thing the legislation mentions.

So should Obama be impeached?  I guess if we’re going by the letter of the law, which we should I suppose, then yes he should be impeached.  But doesn’t that seem like sort of a douchebaggy way of going about it?  We want to impeach him because he didn’t submit a notification?  I said that I was okay with him bombing Libya out of principle, so it’s hard for me to swallow the impeachment pill.  But should we just cast aside the rules for expedience, for principle?  Should we look the other way just because something might be morally justified?

I didn’t vote for Obama.  I made a lot of predictions about his presidency that have come true (much to the behest of my Liberal friends), but if I do decide that impeachment is in order, please don’t lump me in with Obama haters.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

A PSA from the CDC: Political Herpes and You

This PSA is brought to you by the CDC, the Center for Douchebag Control.

Herpes: An STD that never goes away.
I know, I know. There’s enough Palin vitriol to go around in just about any news rag that allows for op-ed pieces, so why should I pile it on? Well, I’m going to do so mostly because the people at the Washington Post do not have the liberty to refer to her as an STD. Oh, and I plan to say "fuck" a few times, which they are also not allowed to say. 

Anyway, Sarah Palin is like a case of herpes: extremely annoying and never goes away. It’s not being a Conservative that makes her annoying, it’s the fact that she is promoting radical conservatism through channels and means that are meant to target the biggest political tards in the country. Every time some big national whatthefuckever happens, Sarah Palin jumps on twitter and starts shitting. And she usually spits out strings of reactionary vomit mixed in with made-up words that are meant to inflame some sense of righteous indignation in her arch-conservative base.

Sarah Palin: An STD that never
goes away.
Palin might refudiate these infercations, but there’s no secret to her success. Her popularity is based on her being edgy, and she knows that all she has to do is tap into the fears and frustrations of the average American moron who barely passed American Government in high school. I mean, could you imagine her tweeting about Locke’s Natural Rights theory? Or how about the Hobbesian Problem; or what Machiavelli’s Il Principe was actually trying to say?

Unless the constituents of the Tea Party actually become smarter and better read over night, then Sarah Palin will never go away. Because she is hot, I like to think that she is smarter than people perceive her; that the whole "oh I’m just a simple moose-hunter mama bear from Alaska who happens to have a great rack," bit is just a calculated façade.

America has almost always been anti-intellectual, so she knows that if she says things like "achieving Jeffersonian ends through Hamiltonian means," she’s going to lose her audience. In fact, most assholes would say "well I know who Thomas Jeffersonian was, but who the fuck was this Hamiltonian guy? He sounds like a queer!" So as long as there are political idiots willing to listen, there will be Sarah Palin.

"Me?  Infectious?"
Yes, the nation has problems. But does that mean that we have to resort to demagogues who gain support simply by shitting on Obama? Unlike Palin, I would never be able to make it in politics because I’m way smarter and more realistic than most people who vote. The only way I could be successful would be to sacrifice my soul, sleep with the whore of ignorance and idiocy, and spread herpes to all the other ignorant dip shits who call themselves "Tea Partiers."

"But Jack, aren’t you just like Palin? Aren’t you saying really edgy and off-the-wall things to grab the attention of your audience?" Good question, hypothetical nay-sayer. I do say things like fuck, shit, and whore, all to be edgy so that I get your attention. But the difference is that I'm only edgy to grab your attention.  I actually try to convey a message that's a little deeper than "*angry face* evil big government!"  Palin requires that you be a dumbass, I simply require that you just give a shit.

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Libya Free or Die!

Or maybe Liberace?
I know, that was a terrible play on words, but it will make total sense shortly.  Ever since the revolution in Egypt seemed to succeed, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about the moral implications of this whole Libya thing.  For instance, do we really want to help oust a guy that dresses like an African Elton John?

On a slightly more serious note, let me say that as a guy who majored in American History in college, I am particularly fond of the American Revolution.  So when I see all of these oppressed people around the world rise up against their douche bag oppressors, I start to salivate.  That being said, I fully support the notion that a people who are brutally oppressed have the right, the duty, to revolt and establish a new government, regardless of hilarious wardrobe choices.

I have to say though, with as much opposition that the U.S. met on the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan,I was a little bit surprised that so many nations thought it necessary to help the rebels in Libya.  I mean, I suppose we can all guffaw and say “well it’s just because Libya is driving up oil prices,” but surely the second coming of Christ (Obama) is above such influences.

Whether aiding the Libyan rebels is based on economics or ideology, I suppose it’s good either way that we’re helping them.  Gadhafi is not a good guy.  Any psycho that draws an imaginary line on a parallel and calls it the “Line of Death,” is clearly wacked out of his gourde and probably shouldn’t be in a position of authority over the lives of his countrymen and women.

But how many Americans are okay with this?  Obama has caught a lot of flak from Congress;  I suppose they weren't too pleased with him bombing something without their permission.  I remember that there was somewhat of a stink when Clinton bombed the piss out of Milosevic (Wag the Dog, anyone?), but are people more okay with military action that doesn't involve ground troops?  I guess Clinton was vindicated in the end though, I mean they did build a statue of him in Belgrade or something.  Maybe Obama wants a statue of himself in Tripoli?  I don't blame Congress, or anyone for that matter, for not being okay with this.  I mean there's no entrance strategy, exit strategy . . . or any strategy from what I've read.  Obama doesn't necessarily even want to depose Gadhafi.  Perhaps Obama was bored?

Apparently this is how intimidating
world leaders watch the sunset
Then you have scary, undertaker-like asshats like Vladimir Putin telling everyone that helping the rebels is akin to some medieval crusade.  That’s laughable at best.  Everyone knows that Putin and Gadhafi pal around and have family barbeques.  I guess I don’t blame them, after all they do have a lot in common.  For example, neither of them hardly ever smile, and when they do smile you get the sense that someone, somewhere, suffered a random "heart attack."  I do find it funny, though, that both China and Russia opposed U.N. action, but both abstained from the security council vote, and neither vetoed the U.N. resolution.

Sure the world might be less colorful without Gadhafi, but on the bright side we still have Kim Jong Il to laugh at for at least a little while longer.

(no clever caption necessary)

Monday, March 21, 2011

Christian Fearing God-Man

My dad said to me once, “you’re not a Christian, you’re a Catholic.”
So let’s start this off right so that we all know what page I’m on: Fundamentalists are retarded.  If you are one of the millions of people who are now offended with that little gem of literary flourish, fear not! for I am about to tell you why you’re retarded.
Many Christians believe, in their heart of hearts, that all non-Christians, homosexuals, and Catholics are doomed to go to hell because they haven’t “accepted Jesus as their personal savior”; or because they give up eating meat on Fridays during Lent.  To them, God is a being that created humanity, claims to love us unconditionally, and then purposely does shit to trick us into damning our souls for an eternity of pain and torture.
But he “so loved the world that he sacrificed his only son,” right?  So perhaps he’s not an asshole prankster, but more like a dad who believes in tough love; tough, eternal, fire-and-brimstone, skin flayed from the bone to inflict unimaginable pain for the rest of your unnatural existence, inhumanly tortured soul love.
Either God is a sick fuck, or some people are developmentally challenged.  Let’s be reasonable here.  Does it make sense that a God who loves us, and wants nothing more than for us to be with him in bliss for eternity, would purposely insert tests and trickeries into the fabrics of life, knowing that billions of humans will fall for said tricks and earn a spot in the hate pit?  It’s more likely that God is actually as forgiving as the bible says He is, and that his compassion truly does extend to all of us sinners, and not just to the faithful followers of the Evangelical movement.
There’s no secret that Fundamentalists, who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, have gone way off the theological deep end with this stuff.  This is what happens, Larry (The Big Lebowski), when morons who have the cognitive capacity of a 5th grader try to interpret a complex and voluminous religious text that was written over 2,000 years ago.
The Bible has become a weapon in the hands of intolerant, homophobic hate-mongers.  For these ass-clowns, the Bible gives them license to protest funerals, proclaiming God is killing off innocent people to punish America for being too tolerant of homosexuality.  Instead of doing what Jesus told them to do—to be compassionate—they feel it necessary to unleash their retarded vitriol via reverse peristalsis.  Jesus would be so proud.
I once told a friend of mine (who mistook me for an atheist) that I am a “God-fearing Christian man.”  He comically quipped “you’re more of a Christian-fearing God man.”  He’s right.  If being a Christian means being a giant asshole and shitting allover every “sinner” in the world, then you’re God damned right I’m afraid of Christians.  And ironically, the pejorative “you’re not a Christian, you’re a Catholic,” becomes a mark of pride.  I’d rather go to hell for being a loud-mouthed intellectual Catholic than for being a loud-mouthed idiot who thinks God planted dinosaur bones in the ground to test our faith.  Morons.  – Jack Camwell