Operation Yellow Elephant
Search Site
Our Sponsor
Reviews of This Blog
"It's ridiculous to compare you to a douche bag; douche bags serve a purpose."
"Pollutes most of what it touches"
"A blog you should be reading for up-to-the-minute news on wingnuts"
"Very funny"
"Shrill"
Online Store
Click here to enter store.
Media Links
Blogroll
100 Monkeys Typing
A Chicken Is Not A Pillage
A Lie A Day
The American Street
Bark Bark Woof Woof
Cloyce's Coffee Klatsch
Correntewire
Dependable Renegade
Elementropy
Jon Swift
Princess Sparkle Pony
The Republic of Dogs
Sadly, No!
Why Now?
World O'Crap
Wingnut Wide Web
Internment Spa Lady
Fat Andy in P-Town
Clown Hall
America's Worst Law Student™
Gipper's Nippers
Freepers Creepers
Feeds
Credits
Site Statistics
Archive for November 2006
La Cage Aux Pingouins
Posted by Clif on 11/30/06 at 9:39 am
Category: Gay Issues, Wingnuts, Wankers
By now you’ve probably read that Happy Feet is a darkly Luddite piece of propaganda with the sole mission of encouraging eight-year-olds to flatten the tires of SUVs, trade in their tuna salad for tofu stir-fries, and vote for Al Gore in 2018. What you may have missed is the other subtext of Happy Feet — teh gay subtext — brought to you by Michael Medved who could find insidious liberal bias in Red Dawn.
Why, of course, you say, the movie has to be a screed for teh gays. It has snappy little birds in formal wear who tap dance and eat sushi. **Slapping Forehead.** What on earth was I thinking?
Except that’s not why Medved thinks that Happy Feet should be renamed Brokeback Glacier. It’s this:
As in so many other recent films, there’s a subtext that appears to plead for endorsement of gay identity. Mumbles (the voice of Elijah Wood) displeases his parents and the leaders of his community because he’s born different, and makes an impassioned plea that he can’t possibly change – and they should accept him as he is.
If any mention of non-conformity is a gay “subtext,” then we can also add The Singing Nun, Harry Potter, and To Kill a Mockingbird to the pantheon of gay movies.
What I don’t understand is this: why don’t the wingnuts who spend all their time detecting gayishness in Square Bob Sponge Pants, Oscar in A Shark’s Tale, Tinkie Winkie, and now a fleet-footed hoofer named Mumbles in Happy Feet employ their same overheated imaginations to the Biblical stories of Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, the Beloved Disciple and — last but not least — Joseph and that fabulous coat?
Buckles of Mass Destruction
Posted by Clif on 11/28/06 at 10:55 pm Category: Wingnuts, Terrorism
Scott Johnson is fulminating over at PowerFailure.com about the flying imams. He seems particularly fixated over the seat belt extenders that were requested by the middle-aged imams after they boarded.
For those of you who may be having a hard time getting your arms around the threat posed by seat belt extenders, Scott provides us the “research” he obtained in an email from reader Greg Lang. Here’s what Greg said in his email about why you should be scared shitless of seat belt extenders:
I believe the seat belt extensions create a serious airline security threat. This is one heck of a weapon that has been overlooked. Basically the “heavy” head of this is very heavy with both the latch and the belt adjuster lock thing. In a weapon sense it’s a lot like a padlock on a chain or in prison a canned item in a sock. A solid blow to the head can disable and the strap can be used to choke or restrain. I was astounded that these were [allowed for use as] carry on items.
You have to imagine that neither Scott nor his reader have ever been on an airplane if they think that the latch or the “belt adjuster lock thing” of a seat belt would be the weapon of choice of jihadi imams.
Let’s suppose that you were a terrorist and wanted to attack or strangle passengers on an airline with a commonly-found item. Would you use a seat belt extender? Or would you use this?
Thought so.
Anyway, Scott’s research source on the grave threat posed by seat belt extenders has more detail on his “research” at his very own web site. If you promise not to giggle too much, I’ll share with you some of Greg’s careful research about seat belt extenders:
“Tonight I was checking the internet on airline seat belt extensions while watching The Davinchi [sic] Code” (boring and hard to follow, I’m glad I only paid a $1 to rent it at McDonalds.)
Me too, Greg. Oh, and next time you need to figure out how to spell the title of a DVD you can try looking at the box that it came in.
Anyway, I looked up “airline seat belt extensions” and was surprised to find that you can bring your own on an airplane.
That is surprising. I also can’t believe that you can bring on shoes and laptops. After all, you can tie up passengers with shoelaces, knock them up out with a laptop, and then smother them with your seat cushion.
As I suspected they have the “male” and “female” (receptive) ends.
Thanks, Greg, for explaining the female business. I’m always forgetting whether it’s the male or female end which is receptive.
I don’t regularly fly. . .
Seriously, Greg, I never would have guessed.
. . . but judging from the pictures, the “receptive” end looks like it’s a lot heavier that [sic] the receptive end of a car seat belt.
Judging from the picture it looks heavier than a cinder block too.
Anything over a foot could potentially be a very effective “garrote” or chocking [sic] tool.
Holy shit, Greg, what are we going to do about all those guys with 36″ belts? We’ve got a cabin full of “chocking” tools on our hands!
Irregardless [sic] of the Imans [sic], this may be an extremely effective airline high jacking [sic] weapon. Pilots have the secured cockpit but a few people with these “Tommy knocker” seat belt extensions might conceivably hold off the passengers.
Greg has apparently forgotten that to hijack a plane you need to get into the cockpit, not just keep the passengers from getting into the cockpit by wildly waving seat belt extensions at them.
Another example is the “old fashioned” high jacking where the airplane is directed to a country hostile to “western” interests. This may be “plan B” for highjackers or as a potential terror tool, especially in the Midest [sic]. Somalia comes to mind where, if an airplane is forced to land the passenger [sic] might be “kidnapped” by a group such as jihadists.
Bonus points if you can figure out what’s up with all those quotation marks.
My interest in this is more than passing. I will be retiring from my Civil Service job within a year and am considering some job related to airline security.
So, if you guessed that Scott’s definitive source on the hazards of seat belt extenders was a semi-literate airline security wannabe who has spent more time in McDonald’s than on an airplane, you were right.
Althouse Has Her Knickers in a Twist
Posted by Clif on 11/27/06 at 2:05 pm Category: Politics, Wingnuts, Wankers
The “divine” Ms. Althouse, that “formidable law blogger” from some Midwestern law school, is in a high dudgeon that some bloggers have posted pictures of Mormon underwear in discussions of potential evangelical backlashes to Mitt “Not a Lamanite” Romney’s expected presidential bid. Ms. Althouse, always the faux voice of moderation when her right-wing faves are being lampooned, has this to say:
I expresse [sic] dismay that even the people who label themselves moderate go ahead and invite mockery for a whole religion.
Yeah, except when its a religion she doesn’t like and then she thinks it’s just “hilarious.” Does anyone else remember La Divina chortling about the South Park Scientology flap?
Does Chef have to go? I don’t think he’s been an important character in recent years, but since Stone and Parker have been blithely doing so many voices, why not do his too? . . .Think “Comedy Central” would let them do the voice now? Think Stone and Parker will have some more fun with Scientology over this? I hope so!
By the way, the episode that mocked Scientology was “Trapped in the Closet,” and it was quite brilliant and hilarious. Thank God somebody’s willing to mock religion!
I wonder how the “formidable” law blogger defends this? Perhaps somebody has been posting stuff under her name.
Non-Sequitur of the Day
Posted by Clif on 11/26/06 at 3:30 pm Category: Loathsome Republicans, Civil Rights, Stupid Republicans
Trent Lott was on Faux News this morning swinging at the whiffle balls that Chris Wallace was lobbing in his direction. In the course of the interview sycophantic suck-up session, Lott came up with a new, and completely absurd, spin on his infamous comments at Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party:
WALLACE: Back in 2002, you were at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond. . . . And you said if the rest of the country had joined Mississippi in voting for him for president back in 1948, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over the years. You said later . . . you weren’t endorsing his segregationist policy in 1948. . . .
LOTT: Well, I was not endorsing those policies at all. In fact, I was, I guess, six or seven years old when that was happening.
That is a surpassingly stupid response. The issue has never been whether Lott supported Thurmond’s Dixiecrat candidacy in 1948 when Lott was six or seven but whether he was supporting it in 2002 when he was sixty-one. By this line of reasoning, Lott could claim that he has no position on the Civil War since he wasn’t even born yet. Indeed, don’t be surprised to hear him say that if reminded of his statement, in 1998, that he felt “closer to Jefferson Davis than any other man in America.”
Loon of Alabama
Posted by Clif on 11/24/06 at 12:03 pm Category: Gay Issues, Wingnuts, Stupid Republicans
Election advice from disrobed judge Roy Moore, who was too crazy even for Alabama voters, is about as useful as diet advice from Bill Bennett. Even so, the Moonie Times gave some column space today to Moore for just that.
Not surprisingly, Moore’s election advice to the Republicans displays Moore’s trademark imbecility. Moore blames the Republicans’ loss on “the open affront to Christian principles that occurred when Mr. Bush appointed Mark Dybul, an admitted homosexual, as U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator:”
That appointment was confirmed by a Republican Senate, which had previously rejected President Clinton’s nomination of an avowed homosexual as ambassador to Luxembourg. At Mr. Dybul’s swearing-in ceremony, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice introduced his parents and his male “partner,” Jason. Miss Rice then referred to Jason’s mother as Mr. Dybul’s “mother-in-law,” showing disdain for traditional marriage and an open acceptance of homosexuality.
Uh-huh. That’s the reason. The death of more than two thousand American troops in Iraq is not nearly as bad as appointing a gay man to a low-level position and calling his partner his “partner.”
Moore earns bonus loathsomeness points when he also blames “revelations of homosexuality, which forced Rep. Mark Foley of Florida to resign.” The pedophilia, of course, had nothing to do with Foley’s resignation.
The True Meaning of Thanksgiving . . .
Posted by Clif on 11/23/06 at 9:32 am Category: Dog Blogging
. . . is getting your snoot deep, really deep, in the dog dish.
(Other dog lovers should also watch this short film “Dog Years.” Happy Thanksgiving!)
A Riehlistic View of Equal Protection
Posted by Clif on 11/22/06 at 9:25 am Category: Politics
Dan Riehl joins the long line of wingnut bloggers who believe that sitting around in their underwear watching a TNT marathon of Law and Order qualifies them to practice law. So Dan has hung out a shingle reading “Dan Riehl, Esq., Doctor of Laws and Professor of Wingnutology” and proposes to give us all a lesson in constitutional law.
The subject of today’s lesson from Professor Riehl is a news report that the ersatz Professor discovered about a local community that closed a hiring site for day laborers. A law suit was filed by the day laborers, many of whom were probably immigrants, alleging that this closure violated the equal protection clause. Dan opens up his law book, turns to Episode 367 (”Thinking Makes It So”) and does his best law professor imitation:
Equal protection? Under the Constitution? Which appears to now apply to every citizen of every country in the world, including terrorists, given recent judiciary decisions. Somehow I don’t think that’s what the Founders had in mind.
Dan, you ignorant twit, the equal protection clause is found in the Fourteenth Amendment which was adopted in 1868 when the Founders were long dead. Their intent in adopting the original constitution is irrelevant. That’s why it’s an amendment.
Perfesser Riehl has no clue where the equal protection clause comes from, much less what it says. It says, Dan, that no state may deny equal protection to “any person within its jurisdiction.” It says “any person,” not “any citizen.” When the Fourteenth Amendment means to refer to “citizens” it says “citizens” as it does in the privileges and immunities clause. The Supreme Court made this clear back in 1982 in Plyler v. Doe where it held that the right to equal protection is not confined to U.S. citizens.
In next week’s class, Professor Dan the Man will give us his thoughts on strict interpretation of the Constitution. (Hint: strict interpretation is what Dan says the Constitution says, not what anyone else says it says.)
Fumento Fumes
Posted by Clif on 11/21/06 at 11:50 am Category: Wankers, Wingnut Science
Disgraced punditute Mikey Fumento has so much time on his hands that he can apparently spend all day searching himself on Technorati. We know he does that because anytime a blog says that Speedo swimsuits make Mikey look fat or that Mikey is a disingenuous hack, he visits the blog in about two nanoseconds to defend himself and to call the offending blogger a few names.
The latest post to have Mikey in a tizzy is a hilarious post from “reasonable conservative” Jon Swift that reprinted Jon’s Amazon review for Mikey’s book The Fat of the Land. (In case you have forgotten, that is the book where Mikey reveals his stunning discovery that the way not to get fat is not to eat although it’s clear that Mike discovered this anecdotally and not through any personal experience).
Jon Swift’s review brings up the troublesome problem Mikey had when he wrote a book calling Monsanto the best thing since genetically-engineered bread without bothering to tell anyone that he was being funded by Monsanto. So Mikey rushes to the comments section for Jon Swift’s post to defend himself:
In 1999, as I was writing my next book, Monsanto gave a grant of $60,000 to my think tank employer Hudson Institute that was folded into my salary. In other words, I made no profit on that grant. Please look up “no” in the dictionary so I don’t have to do it for you.
Frankly, I don’t get this “folded into” my salary bit. Normally you fold egg whites into a soufflé, not grants into a salary. It leaves up in the air whether Mikey got the grant through an increase in salary or whether it was simply used by Hudson to pay his salary. Even so, this whole argument is rather like the prostitute who claims she’s not a whore because she gets paid by the madam and not by the john.
Mikey has even more about the Monsanto grant:
It was not a secret; just because you don’t put something on a billboard does not make it secret.
Yeah, I’m sure Mikey told his wife. But more importantly he didn’t tell the readers of the book on Monsanto. Which pretty much makes it a “secret.” Look it up “secret” in the dictionary, Mikey, so I don’t have to do it for you.
By now, many of you are probably rushing to Mikey’s defense. Suppose, just suppose, you say, that Mikey was guaranteed to get the same salary from Hudson whether or not Monsanto made the grant? What’s so bad about that? Isn’t that what he’s claiming?
Well, I might consider this argument if it were not from this little revelation from Fumento in his comment:
Last month I had to leave Hudson precisely because I don’t receive corporate donations — the one from Monsanto was the last.
Read that again just to let that sink in. He “left” Hudson “precisely because” he wasn’t getting corporate grants. Woo hoo! The dirty secret of the Hudson Institute is out. The way to become a Senior Fellow at Hudson isn’t objective scholarship, it’s producing stuff that corporations want to pay for. And it means that Mikey did profit from the Monsanto grant because that was the only reason he got to stay there. Mikey, please look up “profit” in the dictionary so I don’t have to do it for you.
So now that Mikey isn’t a Senior Fellow at Hudson any longer, he has plenty of time to spend on Technorati looking for people who say bad things about him. Don’t say you haven’t been forewarned. (And by you, I mean you Pinko Punko. You too Gavin, Brad and Retardo.)