












Posted by Clif on 03/31/06 at 7:37 pm
Category: Wingnuts
According to the latest hooey-drenched column of St. Peggy of the Dolphins, the U.S. of A. is the very bestest of countries that ever was or ever will be, and the only bad thing about the U.S. of A. is that we don’t tell brown immigrants often enough that we are the very bestest country ever. St. Peggy trots out the following factoid as some of her evidence about how we are the bestest:
We fought a war to free slaves. We sent millions of white men to battle and destroyed a portion of our nation to free millions of black men. What kind of nation does this?
Only a very great one. Maybe the greatest of all.
Once again Peggy’s grasp on her martini glass is much firmer than her grasp of American history. To hear Peggy tell it, the Civil War was just another example of the White Man’s Burden, with gigabazillions of altruistic white men marching off to save black men who could not save themselves.
Except, of course, not just white men fought for the Union. At least 180,000 African-American’s fought for the Union Army. And the number of total union troops wasn’t in the millions, but was more likely around 700,000, including both whites and blacks.
I live about a block away from a memorial to the African-American soldiers who fought in the Civil War. Next time Peggy comes to Washington she should stagger out from her hotel bar long enough to come up to my neighborhood and see it.
Posted by Clif on 03/31/06 at 1:20 am
Category: IraqPinko Punko at 3Bulls discovered this site where everybody can make a Tahoe commercial and then send it to Donald “Martha Sucks!” Trump to see if he likes it. Here’s the one that I made. I don’t think the Donald will like it.
Posted by Clif on 03/28/06 at 8:29 pm
Category: Gay Issues, Loathsome Republicans
We recently posted about loathsome Tennessee Republican Debra Maggart who said that gays shouldn’t adopt because they “have issues.” Well, that’s not all she has to say about gay adoption. She also had this to say about gay adoption in an email to a master’s student at Vanderbilt:
We also have seen evidence that homosexual couples prey on young males and have, in some instances, adopted them in order to have unfretted [sic] access to subject them to a life of molestation and sexual abuse.
We have also seen evidence that some southern Republicans have, in some instances, adopted children to subject them to a life of molestation and sexual abuse. Many more southern Republicans have adopted children to subject them to a life of ignorance and bigotry. So let’s pass a law to prohibit Republican adoption.
Posted by Clif on 03/27/06 at 12:58 pm
Category: Wingnuts
The latest column from Pastor Swank, the man who made the phrase “homo nups” a household word, needs no further elucidation. Indeed, it would be wrong for me to say anything more about it than it says for itself, so it is presented here without comment:
I am confused.
Michael was such a handsome fellow. I think he had the broadest, most sincere smile I have ever seen.
I remember my teen friend working out at the “Y”. He was lifting weights. His T shirt was off. He looked down at his slender teen arms and complained, “They’re so skinny. I’ve got to get some muscle.”
What he did not realize is that the arms were not skinny; they were trim, perfect.
I thought, “Beauty is wasted on the young, for sure.”
At school I helped him with his English — how to construct a paragraph that made sense. It was for his journal. . . .
Talk about Maine’s Lakes Region having some of the most promising youths! It is true. That fellow was one of them. But he was also troubled about many things. Like where he was going to sleep . . . .
One morning he fell into a really nasty day at school. With that, he stormed out, never to return.
Months passed. I wondered about that young man with the broadest smile. Then I parked outside our village post office. Walking toward me was none other than my friend!
“Grant!” he called out. With that he ran toward me, picked me up into the air with a manly hug, greeting me with that ever present winning smile.
“So what’s up?” I asked.
Well, this and that, but no steady job, a bit of a hassle regarding some relationships, not certain about a few other basics.
If I could go back in time, I would tell him he could bunk out at our place. I could try something more.
Well with just one comment: if J. Grant Swank ever offers to give you English lessons, there are at least two reasons to say no.
Posted by Clif on 03/26/06 at 10:19 am
Category: Wankers
Mother of God on a merry-go-round. Ben Domenech’s corpse is scarcely cold in his grave before the beatification process has commenced. At this rate, a portrait of this little wanker will painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel before the last pope’s first miracle is even figured out.
The high priest of this ritual is Krapassky over at Racist State, who apparently has been so used to swimming in a river of bullshit for most of his life that the foul odor of this Apologia Pro Vita Benis no longer smells to him. Krapassky starts by saying this:
If you, as many have done, dedicate thousands of man-hours to scrutinizing of his life’s work, you’ll find an amazingly talented writer, a man of principle, and an earnest young activist seeking not to advance himself — though advance he did — but the things he believed in.
Calling this serial liar and plagiarist an “amazingly talented writer” and a “man of principle” is rather like calling Hannibal Lecter a reknowned epicure and man of taste.
So today, the world thinks ill of Ben Domenech. But perhaps it should step back a bit. His crime was not mortal, and his character is not irredeemable. Indeed, most of his friends believe this episode a _deviation_ from a core character that is fundamentally good.
Did this sanctimonius scumcrumpet say what I just think he said? Did he actually say, well, it’s not so bad because at least Ben didn’t kill anyone? Sadly, so! (Oh, and before the proprietors of a certain blog accuse me of plagiarism, they can go stuff it, because I changed a letter. Okay?)
It will no doubt come as no surprise to anyone that to Krapassky the real villains in all this are, of course, those dastardly left-wingers who dared to criticize Ben:
Putting aside the charge for which Ben has been pilloried and you’re left with is a particular group of critics. Unlike Ben, there is far less hope for their redemption. You see - before they settled on the attacks on his writing - they spent three days proving that they are the lowest of the low. Charges of racism were born of poor reading comprehension. Threats of violence. Obscene commentary about his mother, his sister, his father. Loathesome, vile, and disgusting - their contempt for civil behavior surpassed only by the emptiness of their own souls.
Apparently the “after all he didn’t kill anyone” defense is available only to Ben and his fellow conservatives.
Posted by Clif on 03/25/06 at 8:44 am
Category: Gay Issues, Loathsome Republicans
Tennessee Republican Debra Maggart, she’s the slack-jawed blond on the right, has this to say about gay adoption:
Maggart, who voted for a bill to ban adoptions by gay couples last year, responded that gays should be banned from adopting children because “research … shows that most homosexual couples have numerous emotional dysfunctions and psychological issues that may not be healthy for children.”
The representative stood by the statement in a recent interview. “I don’t wish to discriminate against anyone … but (gays) have issues. That’s my opinion,” she said.
Uh-huh. Maggart doesn’t want to discriminate but she does want to make false generalizations about groups of people which, last time I checked, was discrimination.
You can send an email to Ms. Maggart and tell her what you think by clicking here. Tell her I sent you.
And I promise a special gift to any commenter who nails the allusion in the title to this post, an allusion that will, no doubt, be missed by Ms. Maggart if she should drop by.
Posted by Clif on 03/24/06 at 6:06 pm
Category: Wingnuts
Before Ben “The Editor Did It” Domenech’s blogging seat has even cooled off and the scent of his cheap cologne has stopped wafting through WaPo’s offices, the folks at Human Events have rushed to his defense. Well, assistant editor Amanda Carpenter has rushed to his defense in an article entitled “Who’ll Stand Up for Ben?” The answer, of course, is that Amanda will.
Just a few days after the premier [sic] of Red America the Washington Post’s short-lived conservative blog caved to hysterical liberal readers that devoured blogger Ben Domenech’s record to find unproven charges of plagerism [sic] dating back to a piece he wrote when he was seventeen.
Now you can see why Amanda is assistant editor at Human Events and not, say, at The New Yorker.
[H]ere’s is what is alarming me: Where are the conservatives to defend him? Unfortunately, conservative journalists are routinelly [sic] personally attacked. I certainly went through it in college to the extent that a graduate assistant posted photoshopped pornagraphic [sic] images of me all over the internet [sic] for my conservative principles.
That’s Amanda on the right. I’m sorry if the idea of “pornagraphic” images of Amanda may be profoundly disturbing to you, but Amanda is, after all, the one who brought that up.
But hardly anyone came to my defense because I created a mock wanted poster of a professor (who had been arrested) that [sic] was routing university funds to his cronies as an advertisement for the story.
Don’t worry, I can’t figure out what that means either.
In this case, the standard “innocent until proven guilty” wasn’t even considered. Instead, the Post abandoned Ben on account of [sic] mean-spirited rumors and personal attacks.
Funny, I thought Ben resigned after the fifteenth or sixteenth documented case of plagiarism surfaced.
Count me on Ben’s side.
Uh-huh. I think I see what’s going on here. Amanda has previously complained about her recent unsuccesful relationship with a “patouchli-reeking emo poet hippie - representative of all liberals - whom she neither respected nor loved.” I think she’s looking for a little Ben action.
Posted by Clif on 03/24/06 at 9:50 am
Category: Wingnuts
I didn’t have to read the open-thread cat blogger this morning to discover what was going to become of serial plagiarist Ben Domenech at WaPo. I just had to look at my plate. Look familiar?
Posted by Clif on 03/23/06 at 11:29 am
Category: White House, Iraq
More baloney from Bush during his 15-city “Iraq, It’s What’s For Dinner” concert tour:
The enemy, a group of killers, struck us on September the 11th, 2001. The first lesson is, is that oceans can no longer protect us. You know, when I was coming up in the ’50s in Midland, Texas, it seemed like we were pretty safe. In the ’60s it seemed like we were safe. In other words, conflicts were happening overseas, but we were in pretty good shape here at home. And all that was shattered on that day when cold-blooded killers hijacked airplanes. . . .
Where on earth was this moron in the 60s when all the other school children in the country were being told to put their heads between their knees and kiss their asses goodbye if the nukes ever got launched?
Posted by Clif on 03/22/06 at 3:14 pm
Category: Gay Issues, Wingnuts, GayPatriot.net
The Gay Patridiot, not surprisingly, has gotten all mushy, moist and giddy that the WaPo has hired Ben Domenech to do a right-wing blog on the paper’s website. Bruce swoons over Ben’s credentials (”very impressive”) and promises to start his day out reading Ben’s new blog.
Of course, it doesn’t matter to Bruce that Ben really wouldn’t care if Bruce and his boyfriend were thrown in jail for doing the bone dance. Nor does it matter to the perennially clueless Bruce that Ben is all biblical about homosexuality. Or that he laced his former blog with homophobic remarks. Because, of course, Ben believes in kissing Bush’s ass, which makes everything else Ben does completely okey-dokey with Brucie.
Let’s look at some snippets from the former blog of Bruce’s new crush, starting with this little bit from Ben on Lawrence v. Texas:
Here is where Lawrence comes in. Besides the sheer intellectual weakness of the arguments in the majority, there is an implicit ignorance of the very real results for the family, properly understood.
In other words, if Texas can’t send fags to jail, marriage is doomed and all children will grow up to be homosexuals. So, Bruce, you still want to invite Ben over for dinner with you and your boyfriend?
When the Episcopal church ordained a gay bishop, Ben spun all out of control and started spewing this:
He [Robinson] founded Outright, that supports gay, lesbian, or “questioning” young people 22-years-old or younger and “gets them together” with older gay and lesbian church members (I’ll leave the interpretation of that phrase to the reader). I’m not sure that’s a good thing. Robinson should be rejected as someone who believes that an act that scripture (Old and New Testament) and Anglican doctrine clearly states is a sin, is not a sin at all.
Hmm, Ben, but I don’t think you and Ben will be going to church together either.
And then we have those issues that Ben appears to have with people he thinks may be a little too gay for his taste. Like (of all people!) Ken Burns:
As much as I hate NPR, I like PBS. They’ve been rerunning Ken Burns’ The Civil War over the past two weeks, and it’s been good to hear some of those stories again, even with the occasional solicitating [sic] interruption by the ambiguously gay Burns.
Or Justin Guarini:
They’re trying to make the ambiguously gay Justin Guarini into a teen sex symbol… a straight teen sex symbol. Unbelievable.
And if this is how Ben gets over someone “ambiguously” gay, how do you think he’ll be with you, Bruce?
So here we have Bruce mooning over someone who hates Bruce’s guts. Bruce’s little mash note to Ben is all to reminiscent of some geeky fat kid in high school who is so desperate to be accepted by the jocks that he becomes the water boy and hangs around with the jocks all the time. He doesn’t really seem to mind the wedgies and the snickering and the taunting and keeps coming back for more. That’s Bruce in a wingnutshell: sort of the dork version of the Stockholm Syndrome.